# French call for stronger EU to keep America in check



## freeandfun1

French call for stronger EU to keep America in check


> Tony Blair's hopes of healing the rift between Europe and America after the re-election of President George W Bush were quickly dashed yesterday, as France led calls for a rival European superpower to confront Washington.





> Reacting to Mr Bush's victory, Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said four more years of a unilateralist administration in Washington required Europe to develop its own diplomatic and defence machinery.
> 
> "Our world needs several powers. We are in the process of gathering the pieces and the will to become another power," he said.


 This I found very interesting.....



> "There are clear differences over Kyoto, the international criminal court, not to mention Iran and North Korea. There is a heightened perception that Europe is becoming a community of values rather than just a market, which is going to force Britain to decide which side of the Atlantic it is on,"


 I have heard that MANY Brits feel they have more in common with the USA than mainland Europe.

Just like most of the libs here in the states, the French are turning up the rhetoric.  Could we see the US and France coming to a confrontation?


----------



## Kentucky

this can get serious.  Most troubling is the rise of the Euro, now testing $1.30, and the blatant effort by these guys to replace the dollar with the Euro as the world's de facto reserve currency.  If successful, it would have immensely negative impacts on the US and its citizens.  It would also likely lead to excessive political instability throughout the world.  Major wars would be certain.

As it is, they are indeed driving toward a major confrontation with the US.  If it comes about, the US could potentially be forced to choose between allowing its economy to be destroyed or to destroy the economies of France and Germany.  The latter would require military force.

They have a 1912 mindset over there right now and they need to snap out of it.


----------



## wolvie20m

Come one Kentucky what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days? Also if this does leed to a confertation I believe we would win. Also with the help of the British we would stomp through europe. You know whats more disturbing is, cause they don't like our policies they don't like us. Also if they want a fight I can think of many Americans who will give em' one hell of one. They should look at our record so far, only one we retreated from(for political puposes), and another one techniclly never lost nor won still going on. All the others we won so I glady so don't do it europe we don't want to hurt you.


----------



## freeandfun1

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Come one Kentucky what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days? Also if this does leed to a confertation I believe we would win. Also with the help of the British we would stomp through europe. You know whats more disturbing is, cause they don't like our policies they don't like us. Also if they want a fight I can think of many Americans who will give em' one hell of one. They should look at our record so far, only one we retreated from(for political puposes), and another one techniclly never lost nor won still going on. All the others we won so I glady so don't do it europe we don't want to hurt you.



Don't forget, France has nukes and unlike the US, they have tested theirs in recent years (South Pacific).


----------



## Kentucky

anymore than they wanted one in 1914.  They are, though, engaging in an economic arms race that has the potential to rapidly spin out of control in unpredictable ways.  The US could never let oil prices be set in euros and must do WHATEVER it takes to keep that from happening.  I believe that Saddam's decision in Nov. '02 to begin pricing his oil in euros was one of the many reasons the US decided to take him down (Venezuela should take note here).

An excellent older post by onedomino (http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13493) explored the internal motivations for French anti-Americanism and I found it very enlightening.  Anyone on this thread who has not read it would find it a worthwhile read.

Whatever combination of forces is driving the current French/German policies toward the US and the dollar, I don't believe that they're thinking this all the way through.  They don't realize that a military confrontation with the US is almost inevitable if they don't back off.  That was the main point I was trying to make.


----------



## freeandfun1

Kentucky said:
			
		

> anymore than they wanted one in 1914.  They are, though, engaging in an economic arms race that has the potential to rapidly spin out of control in unpredictable ways.  The US could never let oil prices be set in euros and must do WHATEVER it takes to keep that from happening.  I believe that Saddam's decision in Nov. '02 to begin pricing his oil in euros was one of the many reasons the US decided to take him down (Venezuela should take note here).
> 
> An excellent older post by onedomino (http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13493) explored the internal motivations for French anti-Americanism and I found it very enlightening.  Anyone on this thread who has not read it would find it a worthwhile read.
> 
> Whatever combination of forces is driving the current French/German policies toward the US and the dollar, I don't believe that they're thinking this all the way through.  They don't realize that a military confrontation with the US is almost inevitable if they don't back off.  That was the main point I was trying to make.




I TOTALLY agree with you.  I have pointed all this out before, but was told by many I was just being paranoid and falling for conspiracy theories.


----------



## NATO AIR

the french want one, they're having delusions of grandeur again.


----------



## theim

I think it may be time for someone to kick France's ass again to get 'em back in line.


----------



## wolvie20m

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Don't forget, France has nukes and unlike the US, they have tested theirs in recent years (South Pacific).




I think we got a few of those too. It would be foolish to use a terrible weapon such as that. Yet they might just be that stupid, espeacially if they think they can take us.


----------



## theim

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> I think we got a few of those too. It would be foolish to use a terrible weapon such as that. Yet they might just be that stupid, espeacially if they think they can take us.



Good thing we are (were? I forget if we scrapped it or not) working on a missle defence sheild. Let France lob her nukes. We'll blast 'em out of the sky.

When the AP reporter scores the pullizer winning photo of the Eiffel Tower buckling and crashing just as the Nuclear Shockwave hits it, I'm gonna make a poster of that and mount it on my bedroom wall. Such a sweet thing to see right before I fall asleep.


----------



## Said1

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I TOTALLY agree with you.  I have pointed all this out before, but was told by many I was just being paranoid and falling for conspiracy theories.



North Korea has dumped the dollar, and I believe Iran has played with the idea of using it permanently in the past too. Sorta of a coinky dink wouldn't you say?


----------



## Kentucky

Said1 said:
			
		

> North Korea has dumped the dollar, and I believe Iran has played with the idea of using it permanently in the past too. Sorta of a coinky dink wouldn't you say?



Iran is the second largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia.  It's largest customer is Europe, consuming about 1/3 of Iran's oil exports.  About a year ago, Iran began pricing oil destined for Europe in euros, all other Iranian oil is still dollar denominated.  This is a bone America would like to pick with Iran.

Russia has also stated that it could someday go to a petro-euro.  

OPEC has, on several occasions, explored the idea of pricing oil using a currency "market basket" such as the dollar, euro, and yen all on equal footing.  Whenever this has come up, it has quickly gone away again.

The best way to combat this is to have a strong dollar.  Unfortunately, that's not the case right now.  Certainly, relative currency strength is cyclical but the dollar is at historic lows against the euro right now and this is a bad time for that to be happening.


----------



## nosarcasm

Kentucky said:
			
		

> this can get serious.  Most troubling is the rise of the Euro, now testing $1.30, and the blatant effort by these guys to replace the dollar with the Euro as the world's de facto reserve currency.  If successful, it would have immensely negative impacts on the US and its citizens.  It would also likely lead to excessive political instability throughout the world.  Major wars would be certain.
> 
> As it is, they are indeed driving toward a major confrontation with the US.  If it comes about, the US could potentially be forced to choose between allowing its economy to be destroyed or to destroy the economies of France and Germany.  The latter would require military force.
> 
> They have a 1912 mindset over there right now and they need to snap out of it.



Hmm you have no idea. The dollar is so weak because the US government wanted it that way. The Euros do not like it because in combination with
the US deficit they fear inflation might arise in the US and when the US economy turns south so does theirs. 

And your dreams about military operations against Europe. Well you are truly delusional.


----------



## wolvie20m

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> And your dreams about military operations against Europe. Well you are truly delusional.



How would you know? No one could have predicted WWII, infact WWI was the war to end all wars. Look how far that got. Don't call someone delusional for stating something they see. There is a growing animosity in Frace towards Americans. Just looking at possibilties not saying it will happen.


----------



## nosarcasm

France is a military midget in comparison to the US. Both countries are democracies and own nuclear weapons and an advanced delivery systems.

The European as a whole (far from being one) has limited military assets in comparison to the US and a fanatic peace-nick population. The resistance against the war in Iraq stems alot from public opinion that tries to avoid
wars at all costs these days.

If the Europeans do not start a war then the US would have to. This seems 
unlikely to me. Not only have US companies vital interest in Europe also
the difference in common values is not that huge. 

Does any European country wants to fight a war for France or anyone else
I dont see that as a possibilty. 

Do they want to be a more even partner in the relationship with the US. Sure
Will that create posturing over what is fair trade? No doubt. But with
so many multinationals that are invested on both sides of the Atlantic
I do not see a threat in that.

A lot of people predicted WW 2 before the treaty of Versailles was even signed. The outside enemy in form of the USSR helped create the NATO
and soon China will probably fill the position as the next challenger.

The main difference these days imo is that with the international press and 
the ability of most Europeans to read and write in English the differences
between countries have become smaller. The interdependence that countries
have these days and the similar interest the EU and US have (pretty much to keep the status quo) 


Not to mention people like me that would like to promote a closer cooperation
between the EU and the US. The enemies of today or the future are not France or Russia You might be pissed about the French grandeur and their try
to piss on the US leg but it is harmless. De Gaulle had an anti American stand in order to gain something for France. But their influence is declining and the posturing is basically harmless.

The future cultural threat is not socialism in Europe because imo the EU at the end is more about capitalism then a huge socialist state. The cultural divisions in the EU will not go away within the next 50 years. 

But challengers like China are more likely to create problems for the US.
The Jiadist target Christianity as a whole in a clash of civilizations.

To keep the status quo of western dominance in global fiance and trade
I expect the EU and US to work together to secure there part of the pie.

I spoke out against the post because it implied the EU tries activly to
bring the US down. I doubt that would help their security interest nor
that they intend to do that.

The EU itself repeatedly stated that they want a stronger dollar. It hurts
their exports to the US when their products are now more expensive.

Again I assume both sides have an interest in a status quo in the financial
arena.


----------



## wolvie20m

Well done, I agree my part in this may have been because of the Anti-US going on over there. Also War is unlikely with the French or any of the European countries. Just sort of gloating on our military superiority. One more thing thank you, thank you for explaining and not name calling and such. I appreciate people explaining themselves like you did, and a well done explanation.


----------



## padisha emperor

> cause they don't like our policies they don't like us.


Wolvie, you are speaking of the US who hate french, aren't you ?
Because US hates french policy, and then they hate us.



> When the AP reporter scores the pullizer winning photo of the Eiffel Tower buckling and crashing just as the Nuclear Shockwave hits it, I'm gonna make a poster of that and mount it on my bedroom wall. Such a sweet thing to see right before I fall asleep.


theim, you' re so stupid...I hope that you will never lead something, even the smaller...with a such mind, it would be catastrophic.

You know, some French don't like US, but no one thought one second to do a poster of the World Trade Center in flames....it would be an evidence of stupidity and primar barbary.



And for the idea of a war between France and USA........a stupid thing again.
I think that USA have already REAL ennemies to create new ones. N-Korea  and some arabian countries are enough, aren't they ?
And of course, french amry is less numerous than US one. really. But the quality is probably better, and if there is a fight between the same number of soldiers, the french will probably win. Some exercise were organized between french and americans. 16 french planes - Mirage 2000 i believe - against 16 US F-16 Falcon (simulation of course) : 1 french planes "destroyed", 16 US planes "destroyed"...
But it is not the topic. 
Imagine a war between France and USA is stupid, really. A such war would be the sign of the decline of the western civilization - or the sign of the stupidity of the US leaders -


----------



## wolvie20m

> Wolvie, you are speaking of the US who hate french, aren't you ?
> Because US hates french policy, and then they hate us.



No I mean in general your people are starting a movement against us. Whats the French's record in modern war(not simulation)?


----------



## Kentucky

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> Hmm you have no idea. The dollar is so weak because the US government wanted it that way. The Euros do not like it because in combination with
> the US deficit they fear inflation might arise in the US and when the US economy turns south so does theirs.
> 
> And your dreams about military operations against Europe. Well you are truly delusional.



As you can tell from my low post count, I am fairly new here, and, consequently, I may have missed important earlier discussions.  With that caveat in mind, I am curious as to why you believe that the US government wants the dollar weak at this particular time.  

As far as a military confrontation between the US and Europe, my comments were couched in historical time frames.  No one would argue that this is imminent but, rather, an event that will develop over a decade or more. There is an undeniable increase in belicosity reminiscent of earlier periods in European history that did lead to disasterous confrontation.

It is also not credible to argue that the EU is not specifically structured as a counterbalance to US power and influence.  Chirac, Schroeder and others have both openly stated as much.  The counterbalance is clearly intended to be political now, economic in the very near future, and eventually military.

There is much for Europe to gain from effectively countering the US and there is much for the US to lose.  The confluence of competing US-Europe national interests, in conjunction with the likelihood of miscalculation, has classically been a run up to confrontation in the past.  There is no reason to believe that it could not happen again.


----------



## nosarcasm

Kentucky said:
			
		

> As you can tell from my low post count, I am fairly new here, and, consequently, I may have missed important earlier discussions.  With that caveat in mind, I am curious as to why you believe that the US government wants the dollar weak at this particular time.



Well I am sorry that I was a bit harsh in my reaction. I haven't posted here
that much either. 


one analysis of the reasons for the decline of the Us dollar.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_may03bp_lowerdollar


----------



## padisha emperor

Wolvie, be sure that France doesn't hate USA, the french people don't like Bush. Not the country.
And the people who hate USA because they hate Bush are dumbs.

For the record of modern war....France was engaged in Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon............DOn't know for the record, but I know that the french army is really good.
And please for the last time, don't imagine that french are "surrender monkeys".
The reading of an History Books from 496 to 2004 will show to you that your opinion about our army is wrong.


Nevermind, the idea of a war between America and Europe......wow......don"t you think that afetr that, the terrorists will have the most awesome opportunity to rule the world by terror or at least a large part of it ? if two of his adversory make a war, it will be easy : terrorism will wait, and hit the inner, who will be more weak than ever after a such conflict.

And the valours are the same between Europe and You, except some things......
Since 1945, the european countries did not war between us - I speak of western Europe, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, ^portugal, Netherlands...............


France and US are cold today. Bad relationship.
But look at Germany and France : war from the XVIIIth c. to 1945, now, best friends.
France and UK : war from 1066 to 1815(peace in 1904), now good friends, or at least not ennemy, nad friends without the Irak crisis.

I think that France and UAS will be friends again.


----------



## no1tovote4

I don't doubt that France and the US are still friends even today.  In your life have you had no friend that you had an out with?   :huh: 

I would find it amazing if you always agreed with your friends.  And just as you don't always agree with your friends you do not always take their advice either.  So, in the big picture of the world it is a small dip in the road and nobody has blown up the bridge.  We will find ample opportunity to work together in the future.


----------



## padisha emperor

good post ! 

the fact is that some users of this board take the fact that France refused to go in Irak as a treatry, and now think that France is on the ennemy side.

like you said, disagreements between friends are nnormal, and it make involve the relation, after the crisis, things are often better than before


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> good post !
> 
> the fact is that some users of this board take the fact that France refused to go in Irak as a treatry, and now think that France is on the ennemy side.
> 
> like you said, disagreements between friends are nnormal, and it make involve the relation, after the crisis, things are often better than before



I think France is on Frances' side PE-----Is France investigating Chirac for taking bribe money from Saddam yet?


----------



## padisha emperor

Does it justify a war between France and USA ?

when US stop the france/uk invasion in Egypt in 1956, it was bad for our interests.
But no war anyway, so.....


----------



## rtwngAvngr

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Does it justify a war between France and USA ?
> 
> when US stop the france/uk invasion in Egypt in 1956, it was bad for our interests.
> But no war anyway, so.....



Yes.  Your frooping corrupt president helped himself and helped saddam fund the people who are killing our soldiers.  Unless you vote out chirac, you're next.  You're on the axis of evil as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Face it padesha,  Chirac got caught pants down, dick in ass.

Countenance the misdeeds of your statesmen and your beloved U.N.


----------



## Merlin1047

Extracted from Webster's:

friend \n\ 1.  one attached to another by affection or esteem.  2.  one not hostile.

The definition does not fit the French.  The french and their government have no affection and certainly no esteem for Americans.  Even the lesser definition of "not hostile" does not apply.  The french government has undertaken actions intentionally designed to harm the United States military effort in Iraq.  Even during the first Gulf War, our so-called french "friends"  went so far as to refuse permission for American planes to overfly their territory.  This subjected our pilots to many hours of mission time on an already lengthy and stressful mission.

The only reason that the french claim to be our "friends" is so that they can gain sufficient time and opportunity to screw us over the next chance they get.  They also know that if it came to a head-on confrontation, they would have their asses handed to them.

Give me ten honest enemies to one false friend.


----------



## manu1959

france couldn't defeat ronaldl mcdonald or mickey mouse .... as far as i can tell they are just looking for someone to surrend to


----------



## padisha emperor

you're boring with this obsession of "surrender" for France.
Guy, read an history book, don't judge France for 1940.
And even in WWII France did some heroic acts.

So, stop, because when you say that France are surrender monkeys, you have no more brain than a monkey.


----------



## Doc Holiday

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Don't forget, France has nukes and unlike the US, they have tested theirs in recent years (South Pacific).



France hasn'twon a war in over two hundred years.  I'm not sweating the Frenchies too much.


----------



## padisha emperor

France haven't won a war in 200 years ?

Napoleonic warS : several wars : victories : war against Austria and Russia(1805) against Prussia (1806) against Russia (1807) against Austria (1809) against Prussia Austria and Russia (1814).

Before that : Revolution's war : 1792/ 1793 /1794/ 1796/ 1797 1800........victories in Italy, against Austria, and in Egypt.

Afetr, the last campaign : defeat, against Spain, England, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, Austria;........France vs Europe. But 2 days before Waterloo, the french army defeat the Blücher's army........

Colonial wars : XIXth c. : France built the second bigger colonial empire of the world, the bigger in Africa.

1859 (around this date) : war against Austria : complete victory, with the great victories of Magenta and Solferino.
1863 : War in Mexico, with the famous fight of Camerone : about 60 French against 2000 mexicans. Nobody surrender in the french lignes. until the death.
there is in Camerone a monument for the memory of this 60 heroes.

1870/1871 : defeat, but read something about the fight of BAZEILLES : Camerone is for the Legion, Bazeilles for the "troupes de marine"- marine troops - 


WWI : I think that France won it. No ? of course France won it. La Marne, Verdun, Champagne, Chemin des Dames, La Somme, Dardannelles......

WWII : Defeat in 1940, but don't believe that the french soldiers didn't fight : for a large part they fight nutil they had no more ammo.
DUnkirk, Bir Hakeim, Monte Cassino, Rome, South of France, Paris........

Algeria war : military victory.

Suez, 1956 : military victory

Gulf 1991 : victory.
Kosovo 1999 : victory.


----------



## freeandfun1

winning a few battles is not the same as winning the war.


----------



## padisha emperor

boy, are you dumb ?
France won the most part of the wars she did in her History : the Crusades, the first crusades were victories, and the most part of the Knights were French.
War of Aquitania (around 1150-1250) : France won against England
Wars against England in the XIIIth XIVth : victories (Bouvines, Taillebourg against England, Mons en Pévèle....)
100 years war : France won it, the last battle, french victory, of the war : castillon, 1453.
First Italy war : victory, France go to Napoly.(until 1503).
Second Italy Campaign : Victory (1515, Marignan)
War against Spain under the rules of Louis XIII and Louis XIV : victories
Against Europe until Louis XIV : victory.
American war of Independance : victory
War against Europe under revolution : victory (Jemmapes, Valmy, Fleurus, Wattygnies...)
Campaign of Italy : victory (Arcole, Rivoli, Montenotte, Mondovi,; Castiglione...) 
Second campaign of Italy : victory (Marengo main battle)
Napoleon wars : from 1805 to 1810, the wars lead by France are total victories. 
From 1810 to 1815, France lost the war, but won lot of battles
(Ulm, Austerlitz, Iena, Auerstaedt, Eylau, Friedland, Eckmühl, Essling, Victoria, Somosierra, Bautzen, Lutzen, Dresde, Wagram, Borodino, Ligny, Montereau..............about 50 battles, and around 40 victories fro France...)
War against Austria : victory - Solferino, magenta - 
colonial wars : victories in Africa, Asia

WWI : victory
WWII : victory (for the FFI and FFL, of course) : French free themselves more than the half of the territory, did a great job in North africa, and in Italy, and in East of France in 44/45.
Algeria, Suez : victories,on the military point.
Gulf war : victory
Kosovo : victory (France 2nd country on the point of the planes number, after USA, first of Europe)


So, don't see that France won only battles.
And when France lost wars, like the war in Canada,  she won a lots of battles, and with honour. Same thing for Indochina, Dien Bien Phu is the perfect example of the heroic defeat, until the death, with no white flag.Like in Camerone 1863 or in Bazeilles 1870.


You know, it is really sad that you believe that France is a cowardice nation, only for 1940 and the Vichy government.
Because the frnch soldiers were excellent in all the french history, and are still excellent.

The french foreign Legion is the best corps of the world, the US Navy Seals copy on the french exercises of the Legion to do their practice/exercises/training (?)
And the TDM (troupes de Marine) are excellent too.............

If you thaink that we are coward for 1940 and irak 2003, it is dumb. We have 2000 years of history and 1500 of FRENCH history to show that it is wrong.

If I say : "US soldiers and nation suck because they lost in Viet nam, you would kick me, because it is wrong, you are not cowards.
The french soldiers fought in 1940. but the HQ sucked.

and for the "few battles" : France won more battles only from 1792 to 1815 than USA from 1776 to 2004.......


----------



## dilloduck

I think France might win the battle for "who got the most money from Saddam" too!


----------



## padisha emperor

ho ho ho
and USA win totally : "who kill the greatest number of civilians in only one war ?", "who have soldiers who shoot on everybody, even on civilians, wounded without weapons and prone, on journalists..... ?"
"WHo devaste a country to take its oil ?"
"who break the laws established for the most part by themselves ?"

Champion USA


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ho ho ho
> and USA win totally : "who kill the greatest number of civilians in only one war ?", "who have soldiers who shoot on everybody, even on civilians, wounded without weapons and prone, on journalists..... ?"
> "WHo devaste a country to take its oil ?"
> "who break the laws established for the most part by themselves ?"
> 
> Champion USA



The UN could have prevented the whole thing but YOUR GODDAMN PRES was too busy stealing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## padisha emperor

instead of looking the dust in somebody eyes, look the beam in yours.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> instead of looking the dust in somebody eyes, look the beam in yours.



We have discussed the faults of America----I'd like to hear one word from you about Chirac accepting bribes to corrupt the UN.


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> "who have soldiers who shoot on everybody, even on civilians,"



France: Troops Killed 20 in Ivory Coast

Associated Press


PARIS - France acknowledged Tuesday that its troops killed about 20 people, including civilians, during November clashes in Ivory Coast but insisted its soldiers had only acted in self-defense.

Officials in the former French colony have said at least 60 Ivory Coast citizens were killed - either by gunfire or stampedes - when French troops and helicopters shot into crowds.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10306826.htm


----------



## Merlin1047

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Don't forget, France has nukes and unlike the US, they have tested theirs in recent years (South Pacific).



So?  You don't have to keep on testing indefinitely.  If one worked, the rest will too.

But what's the point of this discussion?  We're not going to attack france, much less nuke them.


----------



## theim

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ho ho ho
> and USA win totally : "who kill the greatest number of civilians in only one war ?", "who have soldiers who shoot on everybody, even on civilians, wounded without weapons and prone, on journalists..... ?"
> "WHo devaste a country to take its oil ?"
> "who break the laws established for the most part by themselves ?"
> 
> Champion USA



I can only imagine what Europeans are feeling, being totally unimportant and all. I mean, if I lived in a country who's greatest weapon was a UN Veto, I'd be depressed and angry too.


----------



## Said1

theim said:
			
		

> I mean, if I lived in a country who's greatest weapon was a UN Veto, I'd be depressed and angry too.



Tsk, tsk. you mean THREATEN to veto.    
And don't forget the non-binding resolutions.....scary stuff.


----------



## padisha emperor

fortunatly, theim, France is not this kind of country....
Me, I will be very very sad if I was living in a State where the world culture seems nothing, where Mc Do is God and where God is like the President  - He can not be worth than the true pres. - . 
In a country where, except in the Coasts, when you are in the deep country the people know nothing farther than 50 miles, where everybody believe that their are the best in all and that the rest of the world sucks, where the healthcare system is a bullshit, where the education sucks and where the Bible is teached instead of sciences in some states...
Where people are lobotomized by TV with dummies like Jerry Springer show....with a media network system who don't really inform, like Fow news, and so the population know nothing, just what the President wants what they have to know..........

What's the main US weapon ? the US TV shows ? 

Zhukov, the situation in Ivory Coast and Iraq are not the same, and the French soldiers are not so impulsives than the US......how many civilians were killed buy USA in Iraq ? 10,000 ? more ?


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Zhukov, the situation in Ivory Coast and Iraq are not the same, and the French soldiers are not so impulsives than the US......how many civilians were killed buy USA in Iraq ? 10,000 ? more ?



How many were intentionally fired upon, where the specific intent was to kill unarmed civilians?

You deliberately ignore intent.

We do not intentionally drop bombs on unarmed civilians.

Your logic equates a person who accidentally kills another in a car crash with a murderer.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Zhukov said:
			
		

> How many were intentionally fired upon, where the specific intent was to kill unarmed civilians?
> 
> You deliberately ignore intent.
> 
> We do not intentionally drop bombs on unarmed civilians.
> 
> Your logic equates a person who accidentally kills another in a car crash with a murderer.



That's french logic for you.  From the same minds who brought us French Fries,  French twists,  french kissing and PePe LePew.


----------



## padisha emperor

zhukov, i still think that the french soldiers are more able to make peace ops than the US ones....

when you say that the US don't choose to shoot on unarmed civilian....Was the bullet dropped alone from the rifle of the guy who kill a wounded man who were prone ?
was the ammo alone exit from the tank who shoot on the hotel with the journalist ?


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> when you say that the US don't choose to shoot on unarmed civilian....Was the bullet dropped alone from the rifle of the guy who kill a wounded man who were prone ?


Was that guy's buddy killed by a terrorist pretending to be dead just the other day?  Was that guy shot in the face just the other day?

The man shot was not an innocent wounded civilian.  He was a terrorist who was trying to kill U.S. soldiers not 24 hours prior to that incident.



> was the ammo alone exit from the tank who shoot on the hotel with the journalist ?



Yeah, you're right, someone said, "those reporters are dug in like a couple'a Alabama ticks, some one get an Abrahms over here."


----------



## Merlin1047

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Was that guy's buddy killed by a terrorist pretending to be dead just the other day?  Was that guy shot in the face just the other day?
> 
> The man shot was not an innocent wounded civilian.  He was a terrorist who was trying to kill U.S. soldiers not 24 hours prior to that incident.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right, someone said, "those reporters are dug in like a couple'a Alabama ticks, some one get an Abrahms over here."



Now Z, let's not be too hasty. Patty has a point - I mean besides his head.  French soldiers are in fact more able "peace keepers" than US troops.  I don't know of anyone who can run up a white flag faster than those guys.  I guess that's the french secret to keeping the peace - whenever confronted with an enemy, surrender.


----------



## Zhukov

You're right.  Sometimes I _am_ too hasty.  It's something I shall redouble my efforts to correct.

There are of course two ways to keep the peace.

1.) Shoot the troublemakers.

...and the method that is perhaps less effective in the long run but vastly quicker in execution and provides instant, oh....._satisfaction_, we'll call it.... 

2.) Acquiescence to the demands of the troublemakers.

Who knows?  

Given the latter course of action perhaps if one is _very_ lucky, at some future time collaboration will be an option.... 

....as the junior partner of course.


----------



## padisha emperor

> Now Z, let's not be too hasty. Patty has a point - I mean besides his head. French soldiers are in fact more able "peace keepers" than US troops. I don't know of anyone who can run up a white flag faster than those guys. I guess that's the french secret to keeping the peace - whenever confronted with an enemy, surrender



Merlin, Did your hate against France and French hinder you to read some history book ?


----------



## eric

> to read some history book



Well Padish, I don't know how far back in time you want us to go. It certainly was not the 20th century you are speaking of. My family is from Germany and Russia and I can tell you from stories I have been told, that the French as a fighting force commanded very little respect from the above said armies. In fact they were a good source of humor amongst them. I say this not out of hate for the French, though your country's actions have recently procured a healthy dislike, but rather from simple reality !


----------



## padisha emperor

.....serious doubts...

when did your family come to USA ?
before WWII ?
son, you're a liar.
because before WWII, the french army was considered as the mightiest ground army of the world. (even Hitler, when he saw that France fall in 2 monthes, thought that England will fall in 2 weeks)
Why ? WWI, dear. La Marne, Verdun, Chemin des Dames, Champagne, .........

And now, except in USA and in coutries who don't like France, i don't think that french army is a great subject of humour......USA are fascinated by the Légion Etrangère, by the Troupes de Marine, and we've gopt the best special forces......


A country with a tradition of 2000 years of wars, and 1600 as a country, Has to have a great army.


And for WWII, I don't think that they laughed also about french : see Tooulon , 11/27/1942, or Bir Hakeim, may-june 1942, see Koufra, Sienne, Monte Cassino, Roma, Provence, Paris, Marseille....


----------



## Comrade

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> .....serious doubts...
> 
> when did your family come to USA ?
> before WWII ?
> son, you're a liar.
> because before WWII, the french army was considered as the mightiest ground army of the world. (even Hitler, when he saw that France fall in 2 monthes, thought that England will fall in 2 weeks)
> Why ? WWI, dear. La Marne, Verdun, Chemin des Dames, Champagne, .........



To herald the new century, France suffered revolution, bankrupted, had to sell off its American colonies, and eventually found its leader defeated and exiled... *twice.*

Methinks that's not an impressive record.



> And now, except in USA and in coutries who don't like France,



Several hundred.      



> i don't think that french army is a great subject of humour......



Monty Python does!



> USA are fascinated by the Légion Etrangère, by the Troupes de Marine, and we've gopt the best special forces......



Oooh La La!  Oui, ze women get wet from such thoughts in America.     



> A country with a tradition of 2000 years of wars, and 1600 as a country, Has to have a great army.



So said the Zulu warriors of Africa.



> And for WWII, I don't think that they laughed also about french : see Tooulon , 11/27/1942, or Bir Hakeim, may-june 1942, see Koufra, Sienne, Monte Cassino, Roma, Provence, Paris, Marseille....



Monte Cassino captured by who?   The Free French?

Paris 'liberated' by armored vehicles loaned to de Gaulle by Patton?

Roma???  I believe the Italians themselves liberated that city.

What kind of Sam-hell history do they teach you blokes in France, anyway?


----------



## padisha emperor

Monte cassino, take by Polish, with the great job of the french colonial forces, like the morocco troops.

Roma : first amry in, French, i believe

Paris : free by itself. Patton allow Leclerc to go to Paris, but it was the 08/25, the insurrection began the 19.........the french people of paris take the weapons against the germans. Like in Marseille. In the Limousin............

the Zuu were not a contry in my sense : no sovereignity recognized by ohters countries. not a "real country" of you prefer. A nation, yes.

for the Legion, I still say that YOU are fascinated by the Legion, and the Seals copy their tranning upon the Legion's one.

You hate France, so of course you, believe we are cowards and bastards....not at all...


In fact, you can hate me. If you hate me and hate France without reasons, I think it stupid but i let you....but the fact that you believe France never won a war or France has a fucking History or France is a coward nation...that's wrong, so it hurts me and the Truth.

I think also that France is less hated in the world than USA....Champion USA...always this aim to be the first, also for the most-hated country.


Lot of countries can laugh about french army, it is their right....but they forget that France probably defeat them one day....


but stop this little war.
History is on my side, I'm sure of it....and the Truth walks on History side...


----------



## freeandfun1

ahem.... isn't the Legion Called the French "Foreign" Legion because the vast majority of the soldiers are FOREIGNERS and NOT French?

Also, Monte Cassino captured by the Polish and the French?  Are you fucking nuts?  you better tell my uncle (whom was injured there), as well as Bob Dole and the thousands of other US Soldiers that fought for that place that it was really the French that fought and died there and not them.... hmmmmm

Really, what kind of history do they teach in France?  Oh, I know, they teach historical-fiction........


----------



## freeandfun1




----------



## freeandfun1

The Complete Military History of France  



> ***Please note that the Web designer is not American and blaming the Web designer for America's history is illogical. Though you may critisize this oversimplified French history all you wish, blaming or threatening the Web designer is not nice.
> 
> We are still accepting submissions from history researchers.
> Last update: October 18, 2004.
> 
> - Gallic Wars
> - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
> 
> - Hundred Years War
> - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
> 
> - Italian Wars
> - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
> 
> - Wars of Religion
> - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
> 
> - Thirty Years War
> - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
> 
> - War of Revolution
> - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
> 
> - The Dutch War
> - Tied
> 
> - War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
> - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
> 
> - War of the Spanish Succession
> - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
> 
> - American Revolution
> - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
> 
> - French Revolution
> - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
> 
> - The Napoleonic Wars
> - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
> 
> - The Franco-Prussian War
> - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
> 
> - World War I
> - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
> 
> - World War II
> - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
> 
> - War in Indochina
> - Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
> 
> - Algerian Rebellion
> - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
> 
> - War on Terrorism
> - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
> 
> The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"
> 
> "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."
> 
> Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."
> 
> 
> 
> With only an hour and a half of research, Jonathan Duczkowski provided the following losses:
> 
> Norse invasions, 841-911.
> After having their way with the French for 70 years, the Norse are bribed by a French King named Charles the Simple (really!) who gave them Normandy in return for peace. Normans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in France's [favour] for next 500 years.
> 
> Mexico, 1863-1864.
> France attempts to take advantage of Mexico's weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier ("Halls of Montezuma"). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.
> 
> Panama jungles 1881-1890.
> No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.
> 
> Napoleonic Wars.
> Should be noted that the Grand Armee was largely (~%50) composed of non-Frenchmen after 1804 or so. Mainly disgruntled minorities and anti-monarchists. Not surprisingly, these performed better than the French on many occasions.
> 
> Haiti, 1791-1804.
> French defeated by rebellion after sacrificing 4,000 Poles to yellow fever. Shows another rule of French warfare; when in doubt, send an ally.
> 
> India, 1673-1813.
> British were far more charming then French, ended up victors. Therefore the British are well known for their tea, and the French for their whine (er, wine...). Ensures 200 years of bad teeth in England.
> 
> Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
> Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France's solution: pay them to leave us alone. America's solution: kick their asses ("the Shores of Tripoli"). [America's] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.
> 
> 1798-1801, Quasi-War with U.S.
> French privateers (semi-legal pirates) attack U.S. shipping. U.S. fights France at sea for 3 years; French eventually cave; sets precedent for next 200 years of Franco-American relations.
> 
> Moors in Spain, late 700s-early 800s.
> Even with Charlemagne leading them against an enemy living in a hostile land, French are unable to make much progress. Hide behind Pyrennes until the modern day.
> 
> French-on-French losses (probably should be counted as victories too, just to be fair):
> 
> 1208: Albigenses Crusade, French massacared by French.
> When asked how to differentiate a heretic from the faithful, response was "Kill them all. God will know His own." Lesson: French are badasses when fighting unarmed men, women and children.
> 
> St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, August 24, 1572.
> Once again, French-on-French slaughter.
> 
> Third Crusade.
> Philip Augustus of France throws hissy-fit, leaves Crusade for Richard the Lion Heart to finish.
> 
> Seventh Crusade.
> St. Louis of France leads Crusade to Egypt. Resoundingly crushed.
> 
> [Eighth] Crusade.
> St. Louis back in action, this time in Tunis. See Seventh Crusade.
> 
> Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.


----------



## padisha emperor

this thing is really known......not the first time that I see it....maybe the fifth.....

Wrong, totally....

Freeand fun : the french FOREIGN legion, yes....all the officers, or not far, are French, , and more than  50% of the soldiers. But when the French go inot it, they take other nationality : belgian, canadian, swiss.......One of my friend had the belgian one.
So, this corps has a majority of french, so shut your mouth when you say something wrong.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> But when the French go inot it, they take other nationality : belgian, canadian, swiss.......One of my friend had the belgian one.
> So, this corps has a majority of french, so shut your mouth when you say something wrong.



You forgot German nazis. 

Maintenant aller manger la merde. 


.


----------



## padisha emperor

take in some history books and from me, posted by me the 09/08



> .............
> To the author of this topic : Did you take your "french military victories" on twin-towers.net ?
> I 'll speak to you about the french military victories (the bold words : name of the victory)
> 
> I won't speak of the Clovis ' victories against Alaric II, and will begin in 732
> 
> - 732 : Victory of Poitiers, Charles Martel won against the Saraceens
> - 768/814 : Charlemagne's victories
> - 885/886 : Paris resisted during one year against Vikings
> - 1099 : Took of Jerusalem (the most part of the knights during the Crusades were french )
> - 1214 : Bouvines, the french army lead by the King Philippe II Auguste won against a coalition composed by the Ist Reich - Germanic Empire - and his Emperor Otton IV, the Comte of Flanders, and the King of England...(you'll see that France often win when the ennemies are severals against one)
> -1297 : France invaded Flanders, France lost in 1302 but won in 1328
> -1337/1380 : 100 Years War, 1st part : France vs. England. the King of England, Edouard III, had pretentions upon the Thron of France, and did the war : he won at Crecy, Poitiers, and his son, the Black Prince, won also battles. But with the King Charles V, the French affairs went better, and lead by Bertrand Du Guesclin, the french won at Cocherel - 05/16/1364, and in 1371 began the Reconquest, at the end of the 1st phase of the war, the English occupe no more big french territories, only Calais and a part of Aquitaine.
> -1351 (03/26) : Fight of the Trente, in Britain : 30 english knights against 30 french knights : French won.
> 1415/1453 : 100 Years War : 2nd part : Battle of Azincourt in 1415, the French Chevalry is annihilated by the english bowmen. In 1429, Orleans is free, the Battle is won by Jeanne d'Arc, and France stood up.
> And after a big english and burgundy occupation - the half of the french territory was under the english domination - the French took one after one the cities. And in Castillon, 1453, the French army lead by the King Charles VII, won against the english army of lord John Talbot - the french used of artillery, first time in Europe with so much pieces -
> End of the 100 Years War , France won.
> -1495 : France invaded Napoly - under the reign of Charles VIII
> -1515 : Victory of Marignan, the French army won against the swiss infantry employed by Milan. Everybody at this time said that the swiss were invincible....
> -Rulse of Louis XIII and Louis XIV  - the sun-king - France extended its territory, and had the Mightiest ground army.
> -1643 : the French army, lead by the Prince de Condé, crush the spanish infantry at Rocroi.
> -1644 : victory of Fribourg, french were lead by Condé. and also victory of Lens (1648)
> -1645 : victory of Nördlingen ( french lead by Turenne and Condé)
> -1648 : Victory of Zusmarshausen ( french lead by Turenne)
> -1658 : Turenne triumph against the spanish army at the battle of the Dunes
> -Between 1667 and 1668, France invaded the Spanish Holland  and took a lot of cities. And to 1670, France won also lot of another battles, lead by Vauban, and occupied lots of new cities....and took Ypres, and also territories in Spain and in Lorraine.
> But the other countries want to won against France : 1686/1688 : anti-french coalition, with : Augsburg League, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and UK : the netherlands/Uk fleet keep their supremacy at seas, but on the ground, the french army won, alone against all....
> -1709 : victory of Malplaquet
> -1710 : Victory of Villaviciosa
> -1712 : Victory of Denain
> -1744 : France invaded Netherlands (again)
> -1745 : Victory of Fontenoy, French lead by the Marechal de Saxe, against the british army.
> -1746 : Victory of Raucoux (also with the Marechal de Saxe)
> -1747 : Victory of Lawfeld (also with him)
> - War in India : France's fleet lead by the Bailli de Suffren, won severals of battles against the english fleet. And Dupleix, french governor in India, won against the army of the prince of Carnatic, Dupleix was in a big numeric inferiority
> (of course, finally, England took India)
> -Canada : France lost the war against England and english settlers - the same who will fight England some decades after - >> Some victories, but at the end, like in INdia, England won, and the French Canada and THe Louisiane become no more french - english and spanish - (French Canada + Louisiane : one third of North America)
> -1781 : Victory of Yorktown, ther French ground army of Rochambeau and La Fayette, the French fleet of de Grasse and the US continental army defeated Lord Cornwallis.
> -09/20/1792 : victory of the french revolutionnary armies against the prussian army lead by the Duke of Brunswick, at Valmy.
> -french Revolution war : Victory of Jemmapes (you can write Jemappes too) against the Austrians, in 1792........Victory of Wattignies in 1793 again versus the Austrians....Victory of Fleurus - 1794 - , against the Austrians (3 defeat in 3 battles for them)......
> -1793 : victory of Toulon against the british, first victory of Naopleon Bonaparte.
> -1794 : it is not a joke, but the truth : a french cavalry regiment crush an ennemy FLEET !!! (it was took in the ice)
> -1796... : Italy Campaign, French laed by Bonaparte : victories of : Montenotte, Millesimo, Mondovi, Castiglione, Lodi, Arcole, Rivoli........
> -1798/1799 : Victory of the Pyramids  - but defeat at Aboukir, french fleet sunk by the english fleet -
> -1800 : Victory of Marengo (always Bonaparte)
> -1805 : Victory of Ulm  against Austrians
> -1805 : Victory of AUSTERLITZ, against Austrians and Russians
> -1806 : Victory of Iena, against Prussian
> -1806 : Victory of Auerstädt against Prussians
> -1807 : Victory of Eylau against Prussians and Russians
> -1807 : Victory of Friedland against Russians
> -1809 : Victory of Eckmühl  against Austrians
> -1809 : Victory of Wagram against Austrians
> -1812 : Victory of La Moscowa  against Russians
> ( of course, after, defeat at moscow, at Berezina, at Leipzig, and at least against UK, Netherlands and Prussia, at Waterloo)
> -1830's : Beginning of the Conquest of Algeria...
> -1854/1856 : Crimea War, in 1856 the French took Sebastopol.
> -Invasion of the Future french Indochina (1859/1862)
> -1859 : Victory of Magenta against Austria
> -1859 : Victory of Solferino against Austria
> -1863 : Fights of Camerone, in Mexico (04/30), 65 french legionnaires attacked by 2000 mexicans...the fight continue all the days,from 10 AM to 6 PM the French resist. 13 Legionnaires survived, and their mission successed. More than 600 mexicans were killed or wounded by the 65 french soldiers.
> -1914/1918 : WWI : decisive victory of La Marne  (09/5-10/1914), France stopped the german advance
> From 1916 to 1917, battle of Verdun, the Germans want to crush the french army here, but they failed. 295,000 french soldiers died during this battle, and also 315,000 germans......carnage....
> France won the war, with UK, Belgium, USA, Italy and the countries of the french and british empires.
> It cost to France 1,500,000 dead.........
> -1939/1945 : WWII, France and UK failed in Norway, and france is invaded in 1940. The french soldiers protected the evacuation of the british and french troops at Dunkirk. They sacrified their lives to that.
> -1942, June : Bir Hakeim  : France Free Forces - FFL - , lead by General Koenig, resisted against Rommel's army. Heroic resistance, in a big big big numeric inferiority. and after, fantastic retreat through the german lines to join the allied forces.
> In north africa, French soldiers did a good job against Italians and Germans.
> -11/27/1942 : the French Fleet, in Toulon, scuttle its ships, so they won't be catch by the Nazis.
> -Italy : French entered in Roma, after helped the Polish to take Monte Cassino.
> Liberation of the south-west of France, took of Berschtesgaden, Hitler's castle.
> -1946/1954 : Indochina war. Some victories, but like the US in Vietnam, it's hard to win against a such ennmy. 11/20/1953 > 05/07/1954 : Dien Bien Phu : French army lost after an heroic fight - even radio Mosow, communist like Ho Chi Minh, stopped to insult the French when they saw how they fought, with panache coutage and honour. 5000 dead, 7000 will dead in detention, and fot the Viets, more (nobody know the exacts nubers). the battle opposed 15,000 french against maybe 100,000 Viets. Sme say that the Viets lost 12,000 men, some say that they lost more than 50,000.
> -1954/1962 : Algeria war, 1957 : Battle of Alger, one of the most perfect urban fight of the History, the French took the city (the movie "the battle of Alger" was showed to the US HQ, to show how to proceed while an urban fight)
> -1991 : Gulf war.
> -Since : Operation for the UNO in the Balkans, in Africa - somalia, Ivory Coast, Haiti.......... -
> 
> 
> France have the biggest european army, soldiers of a very good quality, good equipment - FAMAS rifle, Rafale fighter, Leclerc tank........ - so.....you have no rerason to say anything about it.
> 
> 
> This message was really not to "show our french arrogance"  , it was only to do a correction : I'm sick of always read on US board, that france is a loser nation, without victories...now you'll see it is wrong.
> France won battles. and a lot.
> Of course, there is no defeat - or not all - but it is not not the subject. but the important defeats are here too...(Azincourt, Waterloo...)
> 
> It is only to do a historic correction, not at all to "show our prestigious past". Be sure of it.
> 'de bye guys



I will add for the napoleonic wars : Bautzen, Lützen, Dresed, Somosierra, Vitoria, Medina de Rioseco , Essling, Aspern, Montereau, Ligny, Champeaubert, Maloiaroslavets, ............
about 50 battles in the Napoleonic wars, and around 40 french victories.

And for the fact that French won the french revolution because it was against french : Valmy, Jemmappes, Wattigny, Fleurus........not against French.......but victories....



Do you always think that France never won a war or a battle ?


----------



## padisha emperor

SAid1


> You forgot German nazis.
> 
> Maintenant aller manger la merde


they are dead now, bastard.
and French legion is still an elite corps.

And german nazis went here also to kick communist...like you

and don't speak of the Nazis : the man who made the V1 and V2 work at the nasa - Von Braun - , and lot of nazi Germans at the CIA....

and your automatuic translator does errors too....


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> SAid1
> 
> they are dead now, bastard.
> and French legion is still an elite corps.
> 
> And german nazis went here also to kick communist...like you
> 
> and don't speak of the Nazis : the man who made the V1 and V2 work at the nasa - Von Braun - , and lot of nazi Germans at the CIA....
> 
> and your automatuic translator does errors too....



That wasn't an automoatic translator, it was moi!


----------



## freeandfun1

Notice the tone as we move into MODERN history.



> -1939/1945 : WWII, France and UK failed in Norway, and france is invaded in 1940. The french soldiers protected the evacuation of the british and french troops at Dunkirk. They sacrified their lives to that.


They couldn't win, so they, while trying to escape with the Brits take credit for "saving" the brits.... okay.



> -1942, June : Bir Hakeim : France Free Forces - FFL - , lead by General Koenig, resisted against Rommel's army. Heroic resistance, in a big big big numeric inferiority. and after, fantastic retreat through the german lines to join the allied forces.



I like this one..... They call a retreat a victory?



> In north africa, French soldiers did a good job against Italians and Germans.



Here they say "good".  Not Great.  Not Magnificent.  Not Wonderous.  Just "good".  I can accept that.



> -11/27/1942 : the French Fleet, in Toulon, scuttle its ships, so they won't be catch by the Nazis.



Again, they are losing so they sink their own ships and this is a victory.  I love the French way of thinking.... lmfao! NOT!



> -Italy : French entered in Roma, after helped the Polish to take Monte Cassino.



You keep acting like the French and Poles were the only ones at Monte Cassino.  You better read up on your history....

Also, I love how the French love to take credit for what "foreigners" do under their flag.  It was actually the Moroccan and Algerian soldiers (French Expeditionary Corps) that fought at Monte Cassino.

So I guess if we take Iraqi soldiers now and go whip up on Iran, the US can claim that as a US victory?



> Liberation of the south-west of France, took of Berschtesgaden, Hitler's castle.



LFMAO!! I did a search in google checking to see if my historical recolection of the capture of Berschtesgaden was wrong and that it was, somehow, the French that captured it and you know what result I got?  Well, THE ONLY reference to the French capturing Berschtesgaden was at USMESSAGEBOARD.com!  LMFAO!!! 

French Capture Berschtesgaden 



> -1946/1954 : Indochina war. Some victories, but like the US in Vietnam, it's hard to win against a such ennmy. 11/20/1953 > 05/07/1954 : Dien Bien Phu : French army lost after an heroic fight - even radio Mosow, communist like Ho Chi Minh, stopped to insult the French when they saw how they fought, with panache coutage and honour. 5000 dead, 7000 will dead in detention, and fot the Viets, more (nobody know the exacts nubers). the battle opposed 15,000 french against maybe 100,000 Viets. Sme say that the Viets lost 12,000 men, some say that they lost more than 50,000.



Again, a Frenchie is claiming a defeat as a victory.  A loss is a loss, no matter how valiant the effort.



> -1954/1962 : Algeria war, 1957 : Battle of Alger, one of the most perfect urban fight of the History, the French took the city (the movie "the battle of Alger" was showed to the US HQ, to show how to proceed while an urban fight)



Ditto.  If it were a victory, Algeria would still be a colony.  Yes?



> -1991 : Gulf war.



The French Foreign Legion participated in the Gulf War and they really played no role.  They were the extreme left flank of the assault and saw no action.

As for air support, the French did help SOME, but not much.  No great victory to be claimed by the French here..... hmmmm  I see a pattern.....



> -Since : Operation for the UNO in the Balkans, in Africa - somalia, Ivory Coast, Haiti..........



LMFAO!!!

I only have one comment.... Ivory Coast - hmmmm didn't I recently read where French soldiers have been accused of decapitating citizens there?  Me thinks so.  No great victories here either.


----------



## Said1

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Notice the tone as we move into MODERN history.
> 
> 
> They couldn't win, so they, while trying to escape with the Brits take credit for "saving" the brits.... okay.
> 
> 
> 
> I like this one..... They call a retreat a victory?
> 
> 
> 
> Here they say "good".  Not Great.  Not Magnificent.  Not Wonderous.  Just "good".  I can accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they are losing so they sink their own ships and this is a victory.  I love the French way of thinking.... lmfao! NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> You keep acting like the French and Poles were the only ones at Monte Cassino.  You better read up on your history....
> 
> Also, I love how the French love to take credit for what "foreigners" do under their flag.  It was actually the Moroccan and Algerian soldiers (French Expeditionary Corps) that fought at Monte Cassino.
> 
> So I guess if we take Iraqi soldiers now and go whip up on Iran, the US can claim that as a US victory?
> 
> 
> 
> LFMAO!! I did a search in google checking to see if my historical recolection of the capture of Berschtesgaden was wrong and that it was, somehow, the French that captured it and you know what result I got?  Well, THE ONLY reference to the French capturing Berschtesgaden was at USMESSAGEBOARD.com!  LMFAO!!!
> 
> French Capture Berschtesgaden
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a Frenchie is claiming a defeat as a victory.  A loss is a loss, no matter how valiant the effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.  If it were a victory, Algeria would still be a colony.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> The French Foreign Legion participated in the Gulf War and they really played no role.  They were the extreme left flank of the assault and saw no action.
> 
> As for air support, the French did help SOME, but not much.  No great victory to be claimed by the French here..... hmmmm  I see a pattern.....
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!!!
> 
> I only have one comment.... Ivory Coast - hmmmm didn't I recently read where French soldiers have been accused of decapitating citizens there?  Me thinks so.  No great victories here either.




Wow, you rock Free!


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> : the man who made the V1 and V2 work at the nasa - Von Braun -


He only designed the rocket, the V2, not the cruise missile, the V1.

He did more than work at NASA, he was the first director and served from 1960 to 1970.

His dream from childhood was to build rockets to take men to the moon.  Once he was no longer in Nazi Germany, that is precisely what he did.

So he joined the Nazi party to work?  So what?

You condemn him for that?  Then I condemn your entire country.


----------



## Merlin1047

In the days prior to the invention of refrigeration, french chefs developed the sauces for which their cuisine is still famous.  What most accounts fail to mention is that these sauces were developed in order to mask the taste of rancid, spoiled meat so that the delicate palates of the aristocracy would not be offended.

Much like sauces masking a spoiled entree, today's french swagger and arrogance serve to mask a rotting society.


----------



## Wolfe

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Much like sauces masking a spoiled entree, today's french swagger and arrogance serve to mask a rotting society.


Merlin,
While it is true about the French and their arrogance, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Like all people in the world,on an individual level most are decent including the French. I have met some Americans who qualify as a$$holes in my limited travels to the US but ,again, most Americans are great people.


----------



## padisha emperor

Freeandfun, the thing of Toulon in 1942 show to you that the french navy prefer sunk instead of be capture by the germans, and the french fleet did it.

nevermind, believe what you want.....


But the deny of history is negationism


like the Nazis


----------



## freeandfun1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Freeandfun, the thing of Toulon in 1942 show to you that the french navy prefer sunk instead of be capture by the germans, and the french fleet did it.
> 
> nevermind, believe what you want.....
> 
> 
> But the deny of history is negationism
> 
> 
> like the Nazis



Yeah and DENIAL is a river in Egypt.


----------



## padisha emperor

hoho

For the Indochjina war : I just said that even if the french army finally lost - like in Vietnam for US - french army lost with honour, really, with a lot of honour, until  the last bullet.......to follow the tradition of Bazeilles (1870) for the Troupes de Marine (Marines) and Camerone (1863) for the Légion Etrangère   .


----------



## Said1

> hoho
> 
> For the Indochjina war : I just said that even if the french army finally lost - like in Vietnam for US - french army lost with honour, really, with a lot of honour, until the last bullet.......to follow the tradition of Bazeilles (1870) for the Troupes de Marine (Marines) and Camerone (1863) for the Légion Etrangère .




Ho, ho, ho mon chum,  the bulk of the French forces in Indochina were not exactly true blues now were they? Unless you consider Vietnamese conscripts, French legionnaires, and troops from the French colonies in Africa, including, ( but not limited to) Somalia, I think you're highly overestimating France's performance in Indochina - again.


----------



## padisha emperor

if you reade something about Indochina war and Dien Bien Phu, the majority of the names are french, why ? because they are french : the Legion Etrangère, with a lot lot lot of french, and the colonial troops : The Troupes Coloniales are now the Troupes de Marine. But no foreigners in them. So, why this namer ? because these troops served into the Colonies - the first regiment was creat in 1622.
Of course, after, some people from the colonies served into these regiment, like the Tabors (morocco), Spahis (Sénégal), and other regiments from Algeria, Tchad...............

But they were a patr of the FRENCH ARMY. the indinas infantry serving for UK, the Birmans infantry, nobody will say : "that's not the british army". SAme thing for the French Army.


And In Indochina, except Dien Bien Phu and some others things around 1949/50, the French won a lot of battles and engagements.
Like the US from 1963 to 1973...

And the frnehc infantery from the colonies - morocco, algeria......... - were like the "real" french soldiers.
The most decorated regiment in the French Army : the RICM : now, Regiment d'Infanterie de Chars de Marine (Navy Tank Infantry regiment), but before : Regiment d'Infanterie Coloniale du Maroc (Morocco Colonial Infantry Regiment).
(It is the RICM who lost 5 soldiers about the 9 killed in Ivory Coast. It is one of the best regiment of the World)


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> if you reade something about Indochina war and Dien Bien Phu, the majority of the names are french, why ? because they are french : the Legion Etrangère, with a lot lot lot of french, and the colonial troops : The Troupes Coloniales are now the Troupes de Marine. But no foreigners in them. So, why this namer ? because these troops served into the Colonies - the first regiment was creat in 1622.
> Of course, after, some people from the colonies served into these regiment, like the Tabors (morocco), Spahis (Sénégal), and other regiments from Algeria, Tchad...............
> 
> But they were a patr of the FRENCH ARMY. the indinas infantry serving for UK, the Birmans infantry, nobody will say : "that's not the british army". SAme thing for the French Army.
> 
> 
> And In Indochina, except Dien Bien Phu and some others things around 1949/50, the French won a lot of battles and engagements.
> Like the US from 1963 to 1973...
> 
> And the frnehc infantery from the colonies - morocco, algeria......... - were like the "real" french soldiers.
> The most decorated regiment in the French Army : the RICM : now, Regiment d'Infanterie de Chars de Marine (Navy Tank Infantry regiment), but before : Regiment d'Infanterie Coloniale du Maroc (Morocco Colonial Infantry Regiment).
> (It is the RICM who lost 5 soldiers about the 9 killed in Ivory Coast. It is one of the best regiment of the World)




Do you remember what happened at Dien Bien Phu? I'm surprised you even brought that up. 


I also didn't say it wasn't the French Army, I said a lot weren't actually Frenchmen - as in they were people living under french colonial rule fighting in the French Army for France. Why is that so insulting to you? And why to do you constantly downplay how badly the French were beaten in Indochina, which is specifically what I'm talking about, not French regiments in the Ivory Coast you silly tete de carre.


----------



## padisha emperor

For me, the soldiers of the colonies fought for France, under french uniforms, with french officers. So, they're not different of the ohters.

And there is, still now, a rule in the Légion Etrangère : if a soldiers lost some blood - so, wounded - he become french. With the french nationality - it is god of course only for the no-french of the legion - .


Yes, I remember what happened at DBP.
Great defeat,  of course.
Big tactical error. bad estimation of the ennemy (french did'nt think that they - Viet minh - were able to put their heavy guns on the hills)
But what I like in DBP, what I respect, totally, it is the sacrifice of these soldiers, the fight for the honour, until the last breath, with no white flag - so here your favourite joke about french army doesn't work - .
What I honor, it is the fact that when t-he zone was no more praticable, defeat was not avoidable, hundreds of  soldiers wanted , wuihtout orders, to be dropped on the site. They were not paras.

I respect all these act of heroism. even radio moscou respect them when they saw that the french were heroic.


now, sometimes, heroic defeat, a tragic battles, it is the best way to create a good corps spirit. Bazeilles 1870 for the Troupes de Marine, Camerone 1863 for the Légion.
DBP, last and tragic battle for the Colonial troops and the Legion.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> For me, the soldiers of the colonies fought for France, under french uniforms, with french officers. So, they're not different of the ohters.
> 
> And there is, still now, a rule in the Légion Etrangère : if a soldiers lost some blood - so, wounded - he become french. With the french nationality - it is god of course only for the no-french of the legion - .
> 
> 
> Yes, I remember what happened at DBP.
> Great defeat,  of course.
> Big tactical error. bad estimation of the ennemy (french did'nt think that they - Viet minh - were able to put their heavy guns on the hills)
> But what I like in DBP, what I respect, totally, it is the sacrifice of these soldiers, the fight for the honour, until the last breath, with no white flag - so here your favourite joke about french army doesn't work - .
> What I honor, it is the fact that when t-he zone was no more praticable, defeat was not avoidable, hundreds of  soldiers wanted , wuihtout orders, to be dropped on the site. They were not paras.
> 
> I respect all these act of heroism. even radio moscou respect them when they saw that the french were heroic.
> 
> 
> now, sometimes, heroic defeat, a tragic battles, it is the best way to create a good corps spirit. Bazeilles 1870 for the Troupes de Marine, Camerone 1863 for the Légion.
> DBP, last and tragic battle for the Colonial troops and the Legion.




Hey dish--how's that investigation into Chirac coming along ?


----------



## padisha emperor

hey, dillo, where are the WMD ?
where is the iraqi oil, except in US cars ?

so, shut up


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> hey, dillo, where are the WMD ?
> where is the iraqi oil, except in US cars ?
> 
> so, shut up



Not sure where they hid the WMDs---maybe Syria--Iraqi oil goes to create a larger supply so gas prices EVERYWHERE can be cheaper.

Oh--sorry your politicians aren't getting rich on it anymore ( that we know of anyway)


----------



## padisha emperor

the WMD ? maybe also in Iran ? in Jordania ? in Saudi Arabia ? and when you'll have all the oil, you will see that there is no WMD? except the US ones...


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> the WMD ? maybe also in Iran ? in Jordania ? in Saudi Arabia ? and when you'll have all the oil, you will see that there is no WMD? except the US ones...


 

ease up on the whine Dish-----good thing the US doesn't need to use WMDs huh?


----------



## Comrade

dilloduck said:
			
		

> ease up on the whine Dish-----good thing the US doesn't need to use WMDs huh?




Dillo, LOL.   It's all about the Oooooooiiiiiil!


----------



## padisha emperor

good thing that US didn't use WMD ? sure, if you mean WMD in their traditionnal sense.
because bombardments at 10,000 feet with B-52 can be also considered as WMD.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> good thing that US didn't use WMD ? sure, if you mean WMD in their traditionnal sense.
> because bombardments at 10,000 feet with B-52 can be also considered as WMD.



PE, I purpose a compromise., how about flamming Brits for awhile? I'm not fussy about englishmen, lazy slobs.


----------



## Merlin1047

dilloduck said:
			
		

> ease up on the whine Dish-----good thing the US doesn't need to use WMDs huh?



Rather sad when they are reduced to bragging about how wonderful they looked during a defeat.  I suppose you find solace where you may.

Notice that the only french military unit which has been worth a hoot is the Foreign Legion?  That unit is comprised largely of foreigners, french criminals and expatriates.  But I shouldn't be too critical.  The french possess a social characteristic which makes it practically impossible for them to be an effective fighting force.  It's damn near impossible to aim a weapon while looking down your nose at the target.


----------



## padisha emperor

> Rather sad when they are reduced to bragging about how wonderful they looked during a defeat. I suppose you find solace where you may.
> 
> Notice that the only french military unit which has been worth a hoot is the Foreign Legion? That unit is comprised largely of foreigners, french criminals and expatriates. But I shouldn't be too critical. The french possess a social characteristic which makes it practically impossible for them to be an effective fighting force. It's damn near impossible to aim a weapon while looking down your nose at the target



Why France may not have a military force ?
what is this social characteristic ?

your meaning have no sense


----------



## padisha emperor

> PE, I purpose a compromise., how about flamming Brits for awhile? I'm not fussy about englishmen, lazy slobs



I have nothing against British.
I like UK, and why would I be against them ? after all, they came from France ?


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I have nothing against British.
> I like UK, and why would I be against them ? after all, they came from France ?


 If France is so great, why did they leave????


----------



## dilloduck

CSM said:
			
		

> If France is so great, why did they leave????


 They were probably running from investigation into their immoral conduct


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I have nothing against British.
> I like UK, and why would I be against them ? after all, they came from France ?




Ok, you big tomate.  I mean c'est correct, tu  gross tomate. :happy2:

Did I say that right? How about "Dude, ou est mon auto?"  :rotflmao:


----------



## padisha emperor

> If France is so great, why did they leave????



Normands and William the Conqueror leave to invade England.
The lords Plantagenêt leave to rule about the kingdom of England. Alienor of Aquitany leave to be married with the king of England (that's why while a moment England had possesion in France, in Guyenne, Aquitany and near the Loire)
Isabelle de France leave to be maried to Edouard the second (the homosexual prince in Braveheart  )
And at the UNO assembly, the british minister said "I speak for an old nation, founded in 1066 by the French"


And : 
tu es une grosse tomate.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Normands and William the Conqueror leave to invade England.
> The lords Plantagenêt leave to rule about the kingdom of England. Alienor of Aquitany leave to be married with the king of England (that's why while a moment England had possesion in France, in Guyenne, Aquitany and near the Loire)
> Isabelle de France leave to be maried to Edouard the second (the homosexual prince in Braveheart  )
> And at the UNO assembly, the british minister said "I speak for an old nation, founded in 1066 by the French"
> 
> 
> And :
> tu es une grosse tomate.




Don't change PE, your a real authentic GROSSE TOMATE. I'm glad my Francaise insults are not lost on you, I do try. Now, ou est mon auto Dude!?!


----------



## padisha emperor

You are a real authentic stereotipe of the lambda american, like we think you are in Europe.

the insulte "big tomato" doesn't really hurt me, this kind of insult is only used by 5 years old children.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> You are a real authentic stereotipe of the lambda american, like we think you are in Europe.



I know you are but what am I, frog.



> the insulte "big tomato" doesn't really hurt me, this kind of insult is only used by 5 years old children.



This from a naition of 5 yr olds? Ha, you're a funny little Pepsi aren't you.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Normands and William the Conqueror leave to invade England.
> The lords Plantagenêt leave to rule about the kingdom of England. Alienor of Aquitany leave to be married with the king of England (that's why while a moment England had possesion in France, in Guyenne, Aquitany and near the Loire)
> Isabelle de France leave to be maried to Edouard the second (the homosexual prince in Braveheart  )
> And at the UNO assembly, the british minister said "I speak for an old nation, founded in 1066 by the French"
> 
> 
> And :
> tu es une grosse tomate.


Exactly! So France has also conducted it's own "illegal and unjust" wars in the past. That fact now leads me to ask, "what gives France, as a nation, the right to look down it's nose at any other nation?"


----------



## Said1

CSM said:
			
		

> Exactly! So France has also conducted it's own "illegal and unjust" wars in the past. That fact now leads me to ask, "what gives France, as a nation, the right to look down it's nose at any other nation?"



They've changed. :tng:


----------



## padisha emperor

such a bad faith and stupidity, it shouldn't be allowed, but forbidden......

Compare the situation in 1066 and in 2003........are you the biggest moron ever made or do you do it on purpose ?

First : 
at this time, the wars  between nations,, between States, were really not exceptionnal.
the states made wars like Bush say soemthing stupid - very often -  : from 1066 to 1453 >> Wars against England : minimum 6 times. And Also against Flandres, against Germany, also with the Crusades......and that only for France...

Second thing : No international organisation like UNO : if a state wanted to make war to invade some territory ansd get it, or to have more gold or anything else, this State could do it if he had the logistic possibility.
No international regulation, by international institutions............

Now, when there is a war, the international community try to help to resolve the conflict. It is progress.


this discussion have no sense, it would be same as you wanted to compare and find ressemblances between a tomato and aht ewhite house......


1066 and 2003, no relation.
and a last example : if you say that 1066 - or any other date until the XXth century - is like 2003 or 2004, or 2001, so, the WTC attack  the 9/11 would be a classicla act of war. because a such attack would be normal in a war in the Middle Age........so.......stop yet your thoughts, when they are so dumb, dear.


----------



## manu1959

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Now, when there is a war, the international community try to help to resolve the conflict. It is progress.




so things are going well in the congo then?


----------



## padisha emperor

if you want to play at the game "search the small error in his message", I will be good at it with you guys.


Take my sentence in it context.
International organisations try to resolve conflict. in the word TRY, there is a sense of TRYING, so, not neccessary succes.
of course, UNO can not resolve all the conflicts.
But Kongo is different : 
war between neighbors, not betweeen USA and a far far and poor country.
i think that in a war between 2 country who are near on the map, these 2 country can easily justify their interest in the war. (territory, problem of borders, gold, diamonds......)
For USA........attack a 20000 miles-far country........uhu....not the same thing
USA critisize french war in Indochina...
and now, they do worse thing in Iraq.....hoho


----------



## manu1959

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Take my sentence in it context.
> International organisations try to resolve conflict. in the word TRY, there is a sense of TRYING, so, not neccessary succes.
> of course, UNO can not resolve all the conflicts.



ok tell me about the UNO and their success in rahwanda? east timor? vietnam? northern ireland? sudan? somalia? pick one...

are you saying the un is in the congo helping the french?


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Compare the situation in 1066 and in 2003........are you the biggest
> moron ever made or do you do it on purpose ?



No, do you?



> First :
> at this time, the wars  between nations,, between States, were really not
> exceptionnal.
> the states made wars like Bush say soemthing stupid - very often -  : from
> 1066 to 1453 >> Wars against England : minimum 6 times. And Also against
> Flandres, against Germany, also with the Crusades......and that only for
> France...



First, what are you talking about, you didn't finish your sentance at the end? Did you mean to finish by saying "And that only for France having their hands in the colonial war making pot (among other things) right up to what, 1967,  they were perfectly fair and just everytime they fought (invaded) another country?



> Second thing : No international organisation like UNO : if a state
> wanted to make war to invade some territory ansd get it, or to have more
> gold or anything else, this State could do it if he had the logistic
> possibility.
> No international regulation, by international
> institutions............



 Making  life easier for FRANCE in conducting illegal and unjust wars, right stupid.



> Now, when there is a war, the international community try to help to resolve the conflict. It is progress.



WHich they have been incapable of doing. How many times has this been proven?? This is not progress, I think failure is the correct adjective.




> this discussion have no sense, it would be same as you wanted to compare and find ressemblances between a tomato and aht ewhite ouse.....



You make no sense, really.




> 1066 and 2003, no relation.and a last example : if you say that
> 1066 - or any other date until the XXth century - is like 2003 or 2004, or
> 2001, so, the WTC attack  the 9/11 would be a classicla act of war. because
> a such attack would be normal in a war in the Middle
> Age........so.......stop yet your thoughts, when they are so dumb,
> dear.



First you say there is no relation, then at the end it appears you think they do. Make up your mind or use a better automatic translator.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> if you want to play at the game "search the small error in his message", I will be good at it with you guys.
> 
> 
> Take my sentence in it context.
> International organisations try to resolve conflict. in the word TRY, there is a sense of TRYING, so, not neccessary succes.
> of course, UNO can not resolve all the conflicts.
> But Kongo is different :
> war between neighbors, not betweeen USA and a far far and poor country.
> i think that in a war between 2 country who are near on the map, these 2 country can easily justify their interest in the war. (territory, problem of borders, gold, diamonds......)
> For USA........attack a 20000 miles-far country........uhu....not the same thing
> USA critisize french war in Indochina...
> and now, they do worse thing in Iraq.....hoho




hey Dish---how's that investigation into Chirac stealing food money coming along?


----------



## padisha emperor

Said1............
for my sentence "without end", it meant : and that was only concernig France. So, if you take ALL the countries at this time.....wow.....hundreds wars.
I didn't meant that France was always fair, but meant that at this time, it was the normal attitude for a State.
And at this time, time which is qualified by "barbarian time" by some people, it was a nice thing, thing that is not respected by UAS now : declaration of war. oh, I'm dumb, i forget, USA are not at war with iraq.....but if  it is not a war, what is it ? a garden party ?.........................

Don't try to justify the US intervention with example from middle age or XVII/XVIIIth centuries......it would have no sense at all.
That's why I said it was like a comparaison between a tomato and the White House. Or everything else : a big mac and a Ford mustang. No relation, no comparaison possible. Like for the case History/2003. No relation.

other times, other ways.....

the wish to have an international organisation to regulate the international right and resolve the conflict, that is progress.



Hey, dillo, when will you not avoid the subject with your filthy message ?


----------



## manu1959

i make a motion for a neg rep dogpile....do i have a second?


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Said1............
> for my sentence "without end", it meant : and that was only concernig France. So, if you take ALL the countries at this time.....wow.....hundreds wars.
> I didn't meant that France was always fair, but meant that at this time, it was the normal attitude for a State.
> And at this time, time which is qualified by "barbarian time" by some people, it was a nice thing, thing that is not respected by UAS now : declaration of war. oh, I'm dumb, i forget, USA are not at war with iraq.....but if  it is not a war, what is it ? a garden party ?.........................
> 
> Don't try to justify the US intervention with example from middle age or XVII/XVIIIth centuries......it would have no sense at all.
> That's why I said it was like a comparaison between a tomato and the White House. Or everything else : a big mac and a Ford mustang. No relation, no comparaison possible. Like for the case History/2003. No relation.
> 
> other times, other ways.....
> 
> the wish to have an international organisation to regulate the international right and resolve the conflict, that is progress.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dillo, when will you not avoid the subject with your filthy message ?




sorry dish--I fixed the typo---I was just trying to make current comparisons as you suggested.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Said1............
> for my sentence "without end", it meant : and that was only concernig France. So, if you take ALL the countries at this time.....wow.....hundreds wars.
> I didn't meant that France was always fair, but meant that at this time, it was the normal attitude for a State.
> And at this time, time which is qualified by "barbarian time" by some people, it was a nice thing, thing that is not respected by UAS now : declaration of war. oh, I'm dumb, i forget, USA are not at war with iraq.....but if  it is not a war, what is it ? a garden party ?.........................



I've never said it wasn't a war.



> Don't try to justify the US intervention with example from middle age or XVII/XVIIIth centuries......it would have no sense at all.



I didn't, you brought up the middle ages.



> other times, other ways.....
> 
> the wish to have an international organisation to regulate the international right and resolve the conflict, that is progress.



I think it's idealistic given it's success, or lack thereof.


----------



## padisha emperor

*Said1*


> I've never said it wasn't a war.





> First, what are you talking about, you didn't finish your sentance at the end? Did you mean to finish by saying "And that only for France having their hands in the colonial war making pot (among other things) right up to what, 1967, they were perfectly fair and just everytime they fought (invaded) another country?



I never said that. So, who take stupid conclusion about the messages ? 

Said1


> I didn't, you brought up the middle ages.



In fact, i answer to the question of somebody. And why did I mention the date of 1066 ? ahem......because somebody wanted that I attack verbaly UK.....Oh ! it was you, dear.

read the previous messages. All began with your post asking me to throwing filth on English.
...


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> *Said1*I never said that. So, who take stupid conclusion about the messages ?



My head is starting to hurt. I never said the war in Iraq wasn't a war. Isn't that what you said I said?



> In fact, i answer to the question of somebody. And why did I mention the date of 1066 ? ahem......because somebody wanted that I attack verbaly UK.....Oh ! it was you, dear.



I was kidding, then someone else....uh CSM i think replied to you.



> read the previous messages. All began with your post asking me to throwing filth on English.
> ...



Again, I was kidding. We all know you are only one allowed to "throwing filth"
Perhaps you should stay away from English message boards since nderstanding english is such an ardurous effort for you. Stupid tomato.


----------



## padisha emperor

I never said you said hat it was not a war : 



> Said1............
> for my sentence "without end", it meant : and that was only concernig France. So, if you take ALL the countries at this time.....wow.....hundreds wars.
> I didn't meant that France was always fair, but meant that at this time, it was the normal attitude for a State.
> And at this time, time which is qualified by "barbarian time" by some people, it was a nice thing, thing that is not respected by UAS now : declaration of war. oh, I'm dumb, i forget, USA are not at war with iraq.....but if it is not a war, what is it ? a garden party ?.........................


first part of the message : explication. second part : end of the thoughts in the previous message, that before, more wars than now. And that before, the declaration of war was respected. then >>irony.

ok ?

You were kinding ? good for you.
have you some links which prooved you were kinding ? (I react with you exactly like some other users of this board react with me)(boring, no ?)


Of course, my level in english is not excellent.
but 2 things : 
1 - my level is going to be better, when I use this board (compare with old old messages)
2 - if some of you correct me instead of saying "you're a dummy at english"...i will progress faster.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> first part of the message : explication. second part : end of the thoughts in the previous message, that before, more wars than now. And that before, the declaration of war was respected. then >>irony.
> 
> ok ?



Que? I'm still confused - c'est correct, je me'en fous (please feel free to correct that  ).



> You were kinding ? good for you.
> have you some links which prooved you were kinding ? (I react with you exactly like some other users of this board react with me)(boring, no ?)



You're mad now right? Frightening.




> Of course, my level in english is not excellent.
> but 2 things :
> 1 - my level is going to be better, when I use this board (compare with old old messages)
> 2 - if some of you correct me instead of saying "you're a dummy at english"...i will progress faster.



Good, keep it up, it's the only way to get used all the different expressions used in the english language, not unlike learning french. I think the dummie remark is directed towards your interpretation of history, not your english. I could be wrong though, it has happened. 

Don't worry, be happy .


----------



## Merlin1047

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> For USA........attack a 20000 miles-far country........uhu....not the same thing
> USA critisize french war in Indochina...
> and now, they do worse thing in Iraq.....hoho



Same thing?????  You must have attended a course in advanced bullshit at the Sorbonne.

Same thing my ass.  How many Vietnamese attacked Paris?  Oh - that's right - NONE!  The french involved themselves in Viet Nam in an effort to preserve french colonialism.  The United States was stupid enough to follow them.


----------



## manu1959

Said1 said:
			
		

> Stupid tomato.



tomatoe has and e at the end


----------



## Said1

manu1959 said:
			
		

> tomatoe has and e at the end



Only if it's plural, or in French. OH! I get it. Gee, is my face rouge.


----------



## manu1959

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I never said you said hat it was not a war :
> 
> 
> first part of the message : explication. second part : end of the thoughts in the previous message, that before, more wars than now. And that before, the declaration of war was respected. then >>irony.
> 
> ok ?
> 
> You were kinding ? good for you.
> have you some links which prooved you were kinding ? (I react with you exactly like some other users of this board react with me)(boring, no ?)
> 
> 
> Of course, my level in english is not excellent.
> but 2 things :
> 1 - my level is going to be better, when I use this board (compare with old old messages)
> 2 - if some of you correct me instead of saying "you're a dummy at english"...i will progress faster.



helping you at english is like the french helping the US win a war


----------



## manu1959

Said1 said:
			
		

> Only if it's plural, or in French. OH! I get it. Gee, is my face rouge.



  moan a me

PS: cut him up baby


----------



## Said1

manu1959 said:
			
		

> moan a me
> 
> PS: cut him up baby



What's with the monkey?


----------



## manu1959

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Same thing?????  You must have attended a course in advanced bullshit at the Sorbonne.
> 
> Same thing my ass.  How many Vietnamese attacked Paris?  Oh - that's right - NONE!  The french involved themselves in Viet Nam in an effort to preserve french colonialism.  The United States was stupid enough to follow them.



i heard it was for the Michelin tyres and the stir fry


----------



## manu1959

Said1 said:
			
		

> What's with the monkey?



we we moan a me


ill get me coat............


----------



## padisha emperor

> I think the dummie remark is directed towards your interpretation of history



shit !
I tmeans that all the history books I've read are wrong.
thanks, Said1, you save me, you'r probably better than 100 historians........


----------



## padisha emperor

> Same thing????? You must have attended a course in advanced bullshit at the Sorbonne.
> 
> Same thing my ass. How many Vietnamese attacked Paris? Oh - that's right - NONE! The french involved themselves in Viet Nam in an effort to preserve french colonialism. The United States was stupid enough to follow them.



how many Iraqians attacked USA ?
 and at this time - 1946/1954 - during the war, Indochina was a french territory, since the XIXth century.... >> war to protect french interests. It belong to the french empire.
Not a sovereign country attacked by USA......you can't compare.....


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> how many Iraqians attacked USA ?
> and at this time - 1946/1954 - during the war, Indochina was a french territory, since the XIXth century.... >> war to protect french interests. It belong to the french empire.
> Not a sovereign country attacked by USA......you can't compare.....



on 9/11 19 terrorists attacked the US. Bush warned that any country that supported terrorism were to be on warning that unless they ceased to support terrorism, they would be considererd an enemy. Iraq refused to comply and was attacked to stop it's support of terrorism.
Indochina was GIVEN back to France at the end of WWII after the allies liberated  it from Japanese control. Sorta like Israel was given to the Jews.
Ho Chi Minh appealed to the US for the freedom of Viet Nam but France was given control instead ---so Ho Chi Minh began a war to liberate Viet nam from French oppression. He won. You simply lost the ability to control something which you took from the indiginous people! The US is defending it's homeland!

BTW-Ho Chi Minh did more to chase the Japanese out of Viet Nam than France ever did. He never got the thanks or rewarded for his help. His country was given to France--big mistake.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> such a bad faith and stupidity, it shouldn't be allowed, but forbidden......
> 
> Compare the situation in 1066 and in 2003........are you the biggest moron ever made or do you do it on purpose ?
> First :
> at this time, the wars  between nations,, between States, were really not exceptionnal.
> the states made wars like Bush say soemthing stupid - very often -  : from 1066 to 1453 >> Wars against England : minimum 6 times. And Also against Flandres, against Germany, also with the Crusades......and that only for France...
> Second thing : No international organisation like UNO : if a state wanted to make war to invade some territory ansd get it, or to have more gold or anything else, this State could do it if he had the logistic possibility.
> No international regulation, by international institutions............
> 
> Now, when there is a war, the international community try to help to resolve the conflict. It is progress.
> 
> this discussion have no sense, it would be same as you wanted to compare and find ressemblances between a tomato and aht ewhite house......
> 
> 
> 1066 and 2003, no relation.
> and a last example : if you say that 1066 - or any other date until the XXth century - is like 2003 or 2004, or 2001, so, the WTC attack  the 9/11 would be a classicla act of war. because a such attack would be normal in a war in the Middle Age........so.......stop yet your thoughts, when they are so dumb, dear.



No, I leave that title to you

You missed the point; the point I was trying to make is that ALL nations (even France) have waged "unjust" wars at one time or another and so have no right to act superior to any other nation in that regard. I am not sure what the remark about Bush in this context is supposed to mean.

Again, off the point I was trying to make, but I would point out that though there was no such organization as the UN in 1066, there were some very complex alliances and many many treaties between nations...all of which meant nothing in the end (much like the UN today!)

Again, off the point, but nevertheless....the kind of help (as I have argued before) offered by the international community usually involves some nation's self interest as a primary concern (France's "solutions" prior to and during the current Iraqi situation is a PRIME example). This is hardly progress; it is a more subtle version of the same old thing.

You are correct (and we agree!) this discussion made no sense. Somebody totally misconstrued or misunderstood the point being made

EXACTLY!!! An act of war which the United States cannot and will not ignore. An act of war perpetrated by a medievil society on a soveriegn nation. The fact that the medievil society consists of a fascist religion and not a soveriegn nation is irrelevant. It makes fighting the war that much more difficult, but make no mistake; it is a war. You are correct there is no relation between 1066 and 2003 now that you have twisted the intent of my discussion.

Thank you for your assessment of my intelligence; though I find it very hard to do so, I will refrain from doing the same for you.


----------



## padisha emperor

Dillo, Indfochina was given back to france, but it WAS A FRENCH TERRITORY BEFORE !!!!!! given BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.

Indochina : french colony. I know, you - USA - can't understand this war because you can't understand the colonialism. it is an european thing, since the XVIth century.
but for France, Indochina was a french terrirtory, the Pearl of Far east. To try to make you understand : algeria, for USA it was a french colony. For France, it was more. more than a french territory, like Indochina. Algeria was likea piece of the french soil, was 3 departements, Algeria was like Provence, Britain, Aquitany.....a real administrative region. Like in the Metropol.

So, you see, different conception.
Indochina, for France, it was more than a simply colony.

Now, question, for you, is the Vietnam war more justificated than Indochina war ? more just ?






CSM.
Of course, every nation had injust wars. But an injust war during the Middle Age is not the same thing than today.
that was I mean.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Dillo, Indfochina was given back to france, but it WAS A FRENCH TERRITORY BEFORE !!!!!! given BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
> iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.
> 
> Indochina : french colony. I know, you - USA - can't understand this war because you can't understand the colonialism. it is an european thing, since the XVIth century.
> but for France, Indochina was a french terrirtory, the Pearl of Far east. To try to make you understand : algeria, for USA it was a french colony. For France, it was more. more than a french territory, like Indochina. Algeria was likea piece of the french soil, was 3 departements, Algeria was like Provence, Britain, Aquitany.....a real administrative region. Like in the Metropol.
> 
> So, you see, different conception.
> Indochina, for France, it was more than a simply colony.
> 
> Now, question, for you, is the Vietnam war more justificated than Indochina war ? more just ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CSM.
> Of course, every nation had injust wars. But an injust war during the Middle Age is not the same thing than today.
> that was I mean.




hey Dish---- It ain't your territory if someone takes it from ya. Ho Chi Minh went to the commies for support because the US was tryin to support France----You got whupped and the US went in to try to stop what was now communism from spreading further--good idea t otry to stop communism---bad way to fight a war.


----------



## freeandfun1

This statement is so absurd it is laughable.



> Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
> iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.



What is the difference?  Was Vietnam not a soverign nation before you arrival in the 1850's?  Vietnam as a nation dates back to 2700 BC.  Does France, as a nation date back that far?

Now, I will tell you what the difference is.

In Iraq, the US will help the Iraqis hold free elections and then we will leave.

The French, when in Vietnam, subjugated the country and the people. 

WOW - you _are_ an IDIOT and not just playing one.  I feel for ya.


----------



## padisha emperor

Dillo...
The war began between french and vietminh. 
And after, the US helped the French. But not when the war began or in the first years of war. the first victories are 100% french, the USA at this time critisized the war.


> good idea t otry to stop communism---bad way to fight a war.


Are you talking about Indochina ?
because same thing for Vietnam : to fight communism >> WAR.
but a difference : VN was not a US territory. French war was more legitim.

Freeandfun : of course, VN was a country. a nation, maybe. 
Becsause be a country doesn't necessary mean to be a nation.
Look France : the real national idea was with Jeanne d'Arc, around 1430. But France exist since 496, or 843, it depends.
UK : not really a british nation. you know why ? one example : look at the rugby : tournament of the VI Nations : France, OK. Italy, OK. Ireland, OK. And for UK : England, Scotland, Wales. You now, the reputation of the Scottish is to hate english so far than  the french.
Look, no a real nation, but with 3.
So, not sure that the Vietnam was a nation since 2700 BC.
but the age does'nt mean something : France and UK's colonies took 2/3 of earth, in these territory, pretty sure that some were older than these 2 countries.
Indochina was a french colony. It is a fact.
Your argue about the age is dumb : scientist think that human line appears in africa. Africa was a continent TOTALLY colonizated. France, UK, italy, Spain, Germany, portugal............not a free country. So....

If you want to play "who's the older", against Iraq you'll lose my dear. One of the older country of the world.
The US will help the iraqis, for free elections, and then will leave ?
hohohohohohohohoho.
USA did the war to organize election ? make me laugh !
When i hear thazt the US troops will maybe stay here 4 more years, I've doubts about the withdraw of these same troops after the elections.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Dillo...
> The war began between french and vietminh.
> And after, the US helped the French. But not when the war began or in the first years of war. the first victories are 100% french, the USA at this time critisized the war.
> 
> Are you talking about Indochina ?
> because same thing for Vietnam : to fight communism >> WAR.
> but a difference : VN was not a US territory. French war was more legitim.
> 
> Freeandfun : of course, VN was a country. a nation, maybe.
> Becsause be a country doesn't necessary mean to be a nation.
> Look France : the real national idea was with Jeanne d'Arc, around 1430. But France exist since 496, or 843, it depends.
> UK : not really a british nation. you know why ? one example : look at the rugby : tournament of the VI Nations : France, OK. Italy, OK. Ireland, OK. And for UK : England, Scotland, Wales. You now, the reputation of the Scottish is to hate english so far than  the french.
> Look, no a real nation, but with 3.
> So, not sure that the Vietnam was a nation since 2700 BC.
> but the age does'nt mean something : France and UK's colonies took 2/3 of earth, in these territory, pretty sure that some were older than these 2 countries.
> Indochina was a french colony. It is a fact.
> Your argue about the age is dumb : scientist think that human line appears in africa. Africa was a continent TOTALLY colonizated. France, UK, italy, Spain, Germany, portugal............not a free country. So....
> 
> If you want to play "who's the older", against Iraq you'll lose my dear. One of the older country of the world.
> The US will help the iraqis, for free elections, and then will leave ?
> hohohohohohohohoho.
> USA did the war to organize election ? make me laugh !
> When i hear thazt the US troops will maybe stay here 4 more years, I've doubts about the withdraw of these same troops after the elections.



The Vietnamese just wanted their independence and felt they deserved it for their part in routing the Japanese from thier country. They did not to want to be run by France and chased out the French. Is it so bad for French colonies to want their independence ???
Iraq is different--the US will no longer sit by and watch terrorism exist without confrontation. The confrontation is occuring politically,financially and militarily. If you think terrorism is OK, just sit on the sidelines and watch. If you think it should be stopped,help but get this straight----the US will not stop until terrorism stops---troops in Iraq or other places may stay there for a long time. Might be shorter if other countries would assist the US instead of supporting terrorist regimes for profit.


----------



## padisha emperor

The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
The railroads.......
of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789,  but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
> But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
> The railroads.......
> of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789,  but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
> For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
> But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.



May be not but with saddams history it was a strategically good place to start. Give up on the "creating more terrorists" claim. They were already there and already hated the US.The US has talked for too long trying to stop it and saddam could has stopped the attack of his country by simply abdicating and retiring to a nice compound outside of Paris.


----------



## Merlin1047

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> how many Iraqians attacked USA ?
> and at this time - 1946/1954 - during the war, Indochina was a french territory, since the XIXth century.... >> war to protect french interests. It belong to the french empire.
> Not a sovereign country attacked by USA......you can't compare.....



Gee - sorry.  Didn't know you were so proud of the fact that the french held other nations as their personal serfs.  But thanks for making my point.

And in regard to Iraqis attacking the US - perhaps you forget that it was terrorists who attacked the US.  Yes, it was the al qaeda group, but to me, a terrorist is a terrorist.  They only have different faces so that we can keep track of which ones we've killed.

Saddam sponsored and supported terrorist efforts.  Even though he was not responsible for the 9-11 attack, he WAS responsible for funding and training terrorists.  If there were terrorist training camps in france, being supported by the french government, then that would be justification to come and kick your butt too.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
> But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
> The railroads.......
> of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789,  but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .



It depends on your definition of independance. Controlling public infrastures, while staying out of civil matters France played a huge role in perpetuating is hardly independant or respectful of human rights IMHO.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
> But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
> The railroads.......
> of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789,  but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
> For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
> But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.


 It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. In France's view, making money from a cruel dictator (despite the agreements it pretended to adhere to as laid out in the UN resolutions) is far more noble than the USA's efforts to not only defend itself as a nation but to free an oppressed people. Of course it was all just so the US could get Iraqi oil (in France's view) which is nothing like French colonialism where entire regions of the world were subjugated for their natural resource. The hypocricy here is simply amazing....


----------



## padisha emperor

> It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. In France's view, making money from a cruel dictator (despite the agreements it pretended to adhere to as laid out in the UN resolutions) is far more noble than the USA's efforts to not only defend itself as a nation but to free an oppressed people. Of course it was all just so the US could get Iraqi oil (in France's view) which is nothing like French colonialism where entire regions of the world were subjugated for their natural resource. The hypocricy here is simply amazing....



France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)

But thanks CSM to speak of past.
because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?

USA did probably moer awful things that France.

So, who is hypocrite ?

And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of  this war in 2003.
Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
USA gave liberty,  maybe, but for which prize ?


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)
> 
> But thanks CSM to speak of past.
> because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?
> 
> USA did probably moer awful things that France.
> 
> So, who is hypocrite ?
> 
> And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
> Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of  this war in 2003.
> Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
> USA gave liberty,  maybe, but for which prize ?




http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=33562



> General Henri Poncet said late Thursday: "I confirm there have been rapes. There were atrocities, tragedies for a certain number of women. I will not comment further out of respect."



So what is happening now on the Ivory Coast?  It doesn't appear that they are giving great freedom to those people!  Quite the opposite.  

I don't think that France can sit on a pedestal that they have already knocked themselves off of and throw any stones.  Look to your own backyard before attempting to fertilize mine.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)



You're starting to sound like the scorned Frenchmen in Apocolypse Now, babbling about rubber plants. I don't think I'd be out of line saying the benefits of westernization brought to the colonies went largely to the colonial powers, be it Britain, France or the Dutch. Why else would expansion of colonial territory be so important?



> But thanks CSM to speak of past.
> because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?



Why don't you just admit to what France was up to in Iraq, you'll feel better with that chip off your shoulder.



> And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
> Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of  this war in 2003.
> [qutoe]Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
> USA gave liberty,  maybe, but for which prize ?



France has been meddling in  north Africa for over 100 years, and now sits back and watches the blood bath. Intersting interpretation, what's in the prize box Jean?


----------



## padisha emperor

no1vote4, i think you miss the point.
Some ladies were rape, but not by the french soldiers : FRENCH ladies were rape, by Ivorians, NOT by French.......
The french soldiers rape nobody.........




> France has been meddling in north Africa for over 100 years, and now sits back and watches the blood bath. Intersting interpretation, what's in the prize box Jean?


Said1 : 
UK was in palestine, now big trouble.
France and UK were in africa, now big trouble.
In algeria, big and awful atrocities in the 90's.
But it is not the fault of France, or of the ancient colonial power. Religious problem.
You nkow, these country were under the rule of France, UK, or others. So, not ethnical problems too, not a lot, because the colonial power make a police mission. Now, these countries are independant. For some of them, they fight for their independance. 
So, they are sovereign. France has not the right to put her nose in their own business.
I want to say that you can't say that France or UK are respàonsable of the actual events, or not of all these events.
Some have religious origins, who appear afetr the independabce >> no relation with the colonialsim. Maybe even, the colonial power had maybe stop the progression of this fanatism. maybe not. Who knows ?


For the ivory coast intervention, and for those you say it is illegal and illegitim : 

France receive a mandate from UNO, to act and send troops in this country
France did an interventin of "international police".
This kind of intervention os admitted by the International laws : France can send the troops to protect the lives of the french citizens in this country, if there is a big danger.
france did it in 1978, in Kolwezi : the Legion's paras were dropped upon this city of Zaïre, to save the French.


----------



## onedomino

What matters is the economic and military implications of relations between France and America. In this arena, _*France has shown itself to be a clear and present danger to the United States.*_

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

False friends
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Published December 28, 2004

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041227-090141-4815r 

During the recent presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry assailed President Bush for alienating key U.S. allies, evidence he maintained of the incumbent's lack of foreign policy acumen and an arena in which the challenger insisted he could "do better." Implicit in this critique was the belief that such allies -- notably, the French -- were anxious to be our friends, if they were not mistreated by America's leader. 
    In fact, it is increasingly clear the French government under President Jacques Chirac is bent on policies antithetical to U.S. interests. They are not simply anti-Bush, they are anti-American and anti-Atlaniticist. The latest example is Mr. Chirac's determination to have French and other European weapons manufacturers arm Communist China as part of what he has called "a necessary rebalancing of the 'grand triangle' formed by America, Europe and Asia." 
    This is, of course, hardly the first time that French policy toward the United States has been defined by balance-of-power considerations. Indeed, the decisive assistance of France to the American Revolution did not reflect affection for those bent on ending royal misrule -- a phenomenon its own king would be murderously subjected to soon after. Rather, the motivation was to weaken France's age-old rival, Britain, by helping to cut loose her American Colonies and sapping her wealth in a costly war to bring them to heel. 
    Just a few years later, though, weakening the United States seemed in France's interest. France engaged in predatory acts against American shipping and backed subversion here at home, culminating in the so-called XYZ Affair that roiled Franco-American relations in this country's earliest days. In the 19th century, the French helped Southern secessionists and would have recognized their independent Confederacy had timely and decisive Union victories not made it clear which side would prevail. 
    Nearly a hundred years later, President Charles de Gaulle repaid U.S. help in the liberation of France by cultivating close ties with the Soviet Union and expelling NATO headquarters from Paris. Jacques Chirac was no less troubled by notions of alliance solidarity when the French government reportedly assured Saddam Hussein it would oppose any U.N. authorization of the use of force against his regime. 
    Seen against this backdrop, Mr. Chirac's calculation that Europe must strengthen China militarily at America's expense is not just a one-off betrayal of an ally. It is part of a geostrategic tradition that renders France, at best, an unreliable partner in international affairs and, at worst, what the French call a "faux ami," or false friend. 
    Unfortunately, as this column has noted repeatedly in recent months, France is striving to impose its strain of anti-Americanism on other European states that have traditionally preferred the trans-Atlantic partnership to French or Franco-German domination of their Continent's affairs. The principal vehicle for enforcing the latter over unwilling states -- notably, Great Britain and nations Don Rumsfeld has described as "New Europe" -- is the new European Constitution. 
    If this draft constitution is ratified by voters in Britain, France and a half-dozen other countries, the European Union will have authority to "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy." The U.S. can forget about "special relationships" and strong bilateral ties, let alone "coalitions of the willing," with states bound by such a compact. 
*    Even before such an authority gets conferred upon unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris is working on a dress rehearsal: its bid to "rebalance" American power by augmenting that of Communist China. * France and the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, are pushing hard for lifting an embargo on arms sales to Communist China imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre. All other things being equal, the French and Germans expect, with help from a double-dealing British government, to dispense by next spring with opposition to such a step from the Netherlands, New European states like Lithuania and the European Parliament. 
    The implications of European weapons manufacturers joining Russia in arming China to the teeth are quite worrisome. Thoughtful observers, like acclaimed author Mark Helprin, warn of China's rising application of its immense accumulated wealth to strategic advantage. The latter include: neutralizing U.S. dominance in space and information technology (Chinese acquisition of IBM's personal computer division is not an accident); moving aggressively to dominate the world's critical minerals and other resources (especially those relevant to its burgeoning energy needs); establishing forward operations in choke-points and other sensitive areas around the globe (including, in our own hemisphere, in Cuba, the Bahamas, the Panama Canal, Brazil and Venezuela); and acquiring financial leverage by purchasing vast quantities of U.S. debt instruments. 
    Retaking Taiwan is an immediate target of such power. Dominance of Asia and the Western Pacific are in prospect. And China aspires to exercise global superpower status in due course, if not short order. 
    For years, Washington has paid lip service to -- and often actively promoted -- European unification. If, however, the upshot of unity is to be, as seems likely, a Continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere, the United States must make discouraging such developments an explicit part of its foreign policy. 
*  Mr. Chirac's determination to provide weapons that may be used to kill Americans in the event China decides to attack Taiwan should be a wake-up call. * False friends are not allies. They should not be entitled to the preferential treatment accorded the latter. Mr. Bush is right that democracies traditionally don't fight democracies. But when they equip authoritarian regimes to do so, they must pay a real cost. 

    Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)
> 
> But thanks CSM to speak of past.
> because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?
> 
> USA did probably moer awful things that France.
> 
> So, who is hypocrite ?
> 
> And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
> Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of  this war in 2003.
> Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
> USA gave liberty,  maybe, but for which prize ?



 You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad. 

You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.

You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns. 

I reject ALL of your proposals. 

The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions". 

The United States is indeed the greates nation in our time. No amount of jealous rationalization will change that. Neither the UN nor Europe nor religious fanaticism will make us as evil as you and others like you want the rest of the world to believe. Yes, your lies will be well recieved in some parts of the planet, just as Lucifer's rhetoric has worked its magic througout the ages; and some day it may even have the effects you so obviously desire. The US just may someday be destroyed and become a third rate nation as France, Germany, Spain and the other European nations are today. Many will proudly proclaim the demise of the world's remaining superpower (you included, no doubt) and joyfully trumpet yet one more great achievement and add it to their country's glorious history. When that day comes, the world will be a far far worse place than it has ever been.


----------



## NATO AIR

hey padisha, you guys figure out which frenchies exactly bankrolled and armed Hutu Power during their slaughter of 800,000 people in rwanda 10 years ago?

your country is a sick joke, a cancer on europe and a traitor to america, as well as a horrible "benefactor" to your precious colonies

thanks for the non-help in afghanistan and iraq


----------



## CSM

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> hey padisha, you guys figure out which frenchies exactly bankrolled and armed Hutu Power during their slaughter of 800,000 people in rwanda 10 years ago?


 Hey they brought those uncivilized savages the railroad...er...didn't they?


----------



## padisha emperor

> You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad.
> 
> You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.
> 
> You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns.
> 
> I reject ALL of your proposals.
> 
> The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions".
> 
> The United States is indeed the greates nation in our time. No amount of jealous rationalization will change that. Neither the UN nor Europe nor religious fanaticism will make us as evil as you and others like you want the rest of the world to believe. Yes, your lies will be well recieved in some parts of the planet, just as Lucifer's rhetoric has worked its magic througout the ages; and some day it may even have the effects you so obviously desire. The US just may someday be destroyed and become a third rate nation as France, Germany, Spain and the other European nations are today. Many will proudly proclaim the demise of the world's remaining superpower (you included, no doubt) and joyfully trumpet yet one more great achievement and add it to their country's glorious history. When that day comes, the world will be a far far worse place than it has ever been.





whow....never see so much stupid things in only one message.



Take it part by part : 



> You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad



No. I mean : look at the good sides ofr france and at the bad for USA. both made and make still good and bad things.
But you only look to the bad sides opf france, and to the good of USA : for you, USA has no default, is the most perfect nation, and France is a fucking nation, condamned to be destroy.....look to some foreigner newspappers, ask some europeans, who are not for USA and not against : USA are not the most perfect nation.



> You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns.



never say that.
But the fact is that you REFUSE to the the TRUTH when this truth is good for France, when it give the good role to france, you refuse, and say that i'm stupid. But it is not me : fior History, it taken from BOOKS. some written by english or US guys....
And if some Europeans think that the US guys are dummies, it is because, and admit it, in a lot of central states, the young people are not rerally enlightned...Some TV report ask youngs from a city in Montana, they ignore where was france, who was UK's pirme minister, who was Jacques Chirac.....
Some Us citizens are unnable to put Spain on a world map !
Fortunatly, on the coast, it is often better, like in NY.
But be sure, I don't globalize to the whole USA.



> You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.


never say it was agood thing. I just say that it had not only bad sides. Some sides were good.
Do you wabnt an example dear : 
the US territory was a british colony for the east, a french for the middle, a spanish for the south.
And the uS nation came from the british colony. So.....
the colonialism give to USA progress......if this phenomene was not here, USA would have not exist.

Another good point : France forbide strictly the slavery in 1848 in the french colonies. So, no more slavery in 2/5 of the african territory....


But of course, colonialism is really bad for the colonized people if you think to the right of these people to chose their own way.
this is a big bad side.





> The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions".


Most generous people ?
I believe that the people who give the more money to the poor countries are the scandinavian countries and France, and some others....not USA.

DOn't forget that the US progress in science, who are awesome, were authorized by the european progress in all ther History.
Don't believe that only USA did something for Humanity.....

Why do you speak of the "Grande Armée" ? pof Légion Etrangère ?
first, know that USA are not against the idea to have a corps like the Légion etrangère....

Second : know, dear, that the "Grande Armée" came from the french revolutionnary army, an army of citizen, a national army.
Maybe more than the US continental army of 1776
So, the french military is made of citizens....WWI and WWII : all the french male in age to wear uniform >> army.
And for Legion : when a soldier  is wounded >> he become french citizen - when he is not - 

And the Grande Armée at the end had some foreigners, from the occupied territory.
But the Grande amrée was french.
in 1805, at Austerlitz : only French...

And UAS are not in good position to criticized to foreign way of war : during the Secession war, the Union use a lot of ZOUAVES...... the Zouaves came from the french army : the US spectator of Crimea War were surpised and admirated in frony of these soldiers, in Sebastopol >> USA wanted to have their own  corp of Zouave.
And for the Gen. BLENKER division ? in Bull run ? all foreigners.


You're too proud of your nation, you don't see the troubles, refuse to see the truth when it hurts your conception of the perfect USA nation......


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> whow....never see so much stupid things in only one message.
> 
> 
> 
> Take it part by part :
> 
> 
> 
> No. I mean : look at the good sides ofr france and at the bad for USA. both made and make still good and bad things.
> But you only look to the bad sides opf france, and to the good of USA : for you, USA has no default, is the most perfect nation, and France is a fucking nation, condamned to be destroy.....look to some foreigner newspappers, ask some europeans, who are not for USA and not against : USA are not the most perfect nation.
> 
> 
> 
> never say that.
> But the fact is that you REFUSE to the the TRUTH when this truth is good for France, when it give the good role to france, you refuse, and say that i'm stupid. But it is not me : fior History, it taken from BOOKS. some written by english or US guys....
> And if some Europeans think that the US guys are dummies, it is because, and admit it, in a lot of central states, the young people are not rerally enlightned...Some TV report ask youngs from a city in Montana, they ignore where was france, who was UK's pirme minister, who was Jacques Chirac.....
> Some Us citizens are unnable to put Spain on a world map !
> Fortunatly, on the coast, it is often better, like in NY.
> But be sure, I don't globalize to the whole USA.
> 
> 
> never say it was agood thing. I just say that it had not only bad sides. Some sides were good.
> Do you wabnt an example dear :
> the US territory was a british colony for the east, a french for the middle, a spanish for the south.
> And the uS nation came from the british colony. So.....
> the colonialism give to USA progress......if this phenomene was not here, USA would have not exist.
> 
> Another good point : France forbide strictly the slavery in 1848 in the french colonies. So, no more slavery in 2/5 of the african territory....
> 
> 
> But of course, colonialism is really bad for the colonized people if you think to the right of these people to chose their own way.
> this is a big bad side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most generous people ?
> I believe that the people who give the more money to the poor countries are the scandinavian countries and France, and some others....not USA.
> 
> DOn't forget that the US progress in science, who are awesome, were authorized by the european progress in all ther History.
> Don't believe that only USA did something for Humanity.....
> 
> Why do you speak of the "Grande Armée" ? pof Légion Etrangère ?
> first, know that USA are not against the idea to have a corps like the Légion etrangère....
> 
> Second : know, dear, that the "Grande Armée" came from the french revolutionnary army, an army of citizen, a national army.
> Maybe more than the US continental army of 1776
> So, the french military is made of citizens....WWI and WWII : all the french male in age to wear uniform >> army.
> And for Legion : when a soldier  is wounded >> he become french citizen - when he is not -
> 
> And the Grande Armée at the end had some foreigners, from the occupied territory.
> But the Grande amrée was french.
> in 1805, at Austerlitz : only French...
> 
> And UAS are not in good position to criticized to foreign way of war : during the Secession war, the Union use a lot of ZOUAVES...... the Zouaves came from the french army : the US spectator of Crimea War were surpised and admirated in frony of these soldiers, in Sebastopol >> USA wanted to have their own  corp of Zouave.
> And for the Gen. BLENKER division ? in Bull run ? all foreigners.
> 
> 
> You're too proud of your nation, you don't see the troubles, refuse to see the truth when it hurts your conception of the perfect USA nation......



 I am going to say this just once. I have never called you stupid. In fact I have never called your posts stupid. I try very hard not to resort to name calling. If you persist in calling me names, I will place you on ignore.

And once again, I say that the things you accuse me of (placing the USA first, thinking it is better than other nations etc...in other words, nationalism) is the very thing YOU are guilty of (if nationalism is something to feel guilty over!). I do not believe that anyone should feel guilty for loving their country.

Your understanding of the people of the United States is sorely lacking as evidenced by your posts. 

And lastly, I could give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of the USA. Am I arrogant? Probably. Do I think the USA is perfect? NO; but it's a hell of a lot better than any other country in the world today. Do I think France and most of the European nations are a bunch of lying, cheating underhanded snakes? You bet I do.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> whow....never see so much stupid things in only one message.
> 
> 
> 
> Take it part by part :
> 
> 
> 
> No. I mean : look at the good sides ofr france and at the bad for USA. both made and make still good and bad things.
> But you only look to the bad sides opf france, and to the good of USA : for you, USA has no default, is the most perfect nation, and France is a fucking nation, condamned to be destroy.....look to some foreigner newspappers, ask some europeans, who are not for USA and not against : USA are not the most perfect nation.
> 
> 
> 
> never say that.
> But the fact is that you REFUSE to the the TRUTH when this truth is good for France, when it give the good role to france, you refuse, and say that i'm stupid. But it is not me : fior History, it taken from BOOKS. some written by english or US guys....
> And if some Europeans think that the US guys are dummies, it is because, and admit it, in a lot of central states, the young people are not rerally enlightned...Some TV report ask youngs from a city in Montana, they ignore where was france, who was UK's pirme minister, who was Jacques Chirac.....
> Some Us citizens are unnable to put Spain on a world map !
> Fortunatly, on the coast, it is often better, like in NY.
> But be sure, I don't globalize to the whole USA.
> 
> 
> never say it was agood thing. I just say that it had not only bad sides. Some sides were good.
> Do you wabnt an example dear :
> the US territory was a british colony for the east, a french for the middle, a spanish for the south.
> And the uS nation came from the british colony. So.....
> the colonialism give to USA progress......if this phenomene was not here, USA would have not exist.
> 
> Another good point : France forbide strictly the slavery in 1848 in the french colonies. So, no more slavery in 2/5 of the african territory....
> 
> 
> But of course, colonialism is really bad for the colonized people if you think to the right of these people to chose their own way.
> this is a big bad side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most generous people ?
> I believe that the people who give the more money to the poor countries are the scandinavian countries and France, and some others....not USA.
> 
> DOn't forget that the US progress in science, who are awesome, were authorized by the european progress in all ther History.
> Don't believe that only USA did something for Humanity.....
> 
> Why do you speak of the "Grande Armée" ? pof Légion Etrangère ?
> first, know that USA are not against the idea to have a corps like the Légion etrangère....
> 
> Second : know, dear, that the "Grande Armée" came from the french revolutionnary army, an army of citizen, a national army.
> Maybe more than the US continental army of 1776
> So, the french military is made of citizens....WWI and WWII : all the french male in age to wear uniform >> army.
> And for Legion : when a soldier  is wounded >> he become french citizen - when he is not -
> 
> And the Grande Armée at the end had some foreigners, from the occupied territory.
> But the Grande amrée was french.
> in 1805, at Austerlitz : only French...
> 
> And UAS are not in good position to criticized to foreign way of war : during the Secession war, the Union use a lot of ZOUAVES...... the Zouaves came from the french army : the US spectator of Crimea War were surpised and admirated in frony of these soldiers, in Sebastopol >> USA wanted to have their own  corp of Zouave.
> And for the Gen. BLENKER division ? in Bull run ? all foreigners.
> 
> 
> You're too proud of your nation, you don't see the troubles, refuse to see the truth when it hurts your conception of the perfect USA nation......



We have posted MANY things wrong with our country on here----Why do you ignore that? Are you unable to change your perspective on Americans? I think so


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Said1 :
> UK was in palestine, now big trouble.
> France and UK were in africa, now big trouble.
> In algeria, big and awful atrocities in the 90's.
> But it is not the fault of France, or of the ancient colonial power. Religious problem.
> You nkow, these country were under the rule of France, UK, or others. So, not ethnical problems too, not a lot, because the colonial power make a police mission. Now, these countries are independant. For some of them, they fight for their independance.
> So, they are sovereign. France has not the right to put her nose in their own business.
> I want to say that you can't say that France or UK are respàonsable of the actual events, or not of all these events.
> Some have religious origins, who appear afetr the independabce >> no relation with the colonialsim. Maybe even, the colonial power had maybe stop the progression of this fanatism. maybe not. Who knows ?







In some instances you're right, they are religious problems, often times made _worse_ by interference from colonial powers giving certain groups rights and recognition that they wouldn't other wise have unless they fought for it themselves, which _does_ have relation to colonialism. Western Europe isn't the only place to look for examples of religious manipulation -  The Treaty of Kuchuk (177? I'm bad with dates) with Russia and The Otto empire  is a good example of using minority religious groups to maintain influence in Christian dominated areas of the Ottoman Empire.

I would have to say stopping fanaticism, is reaching a little too far.  Some religious sects and movements met their creation as a direct response to fear of western domination, and loss of religious culture - direct response to colonialism! Some of these fanatics are still around today.

For the most part, I would say a lot of conflicts are/were mostly tribal and territorial matters, made worse by tribal manipulation and super imposed boarders drawn by colonial powers (I'm referring to Africa here). Look at the some of the conflicts today, some are Muslims fighting Muslims, but they are of different tribes fighting for territory and/or overall  dominance, not much to do with religion. You're right though, a lot of this stuff did exist before colonialism, BUT the colonists used it to their advantage.


----------



## padisha emperor

CSM


> I am going to say this just once. I have never called you stupid. In fact I have never called your posts stupid. I try very hard not to resort to name calling. If you persist in calling me names, I will place you on ignore.
> 
> And once again, I say that the things you accuse me of (placing the USA first, thinking it is better than other nations etc...in other words, nationalism) is the very thing YOU are guilty of (if nationalism is something to feel guilty over!). I do not believe that anyone should feel guilty for loving their country.
> 
> Your understanding of the people of the United States is sorely lacking as evidenced by your posts.
> 
> And lastly, I could give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of the USA. Am I arrogant? Probably. Do I think the USA is perfect? NO; but it's a hell of a lot better than any other country in the world today. Do I think France and most of the European nations are a bunch of lying, cheating underhanded snakes? You bet I do.



For the names, sorry, but you make me angry.

For my poor understanding of the US, maybe, but I don't thin you're representative of the whole US society....
NAd I hope you don't believe that your understanding of the European countries and of France is better than mine for the US......

Amazing, your last sentence......
in Europe, we believe that USA is a country who want to rule all over the world, new kind of colonialism, who lie to make wars, who cheat with international rules...


And again, abvout the french army : you mean that a lot of foreigners are in, but no : only in the Foreign Legion, and less than 50% are really foreigners.
USA use often foreigners : American Independance war(european advisors, like La Fayette, the polish Kosciuszko..........), secession war(Blenker's division....)....

So, why did you speak of that ?


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> no1vote4, i think you miss the point.
> Some ladies were rape, but not by the french soldiers : FRENCH ladies were rape, by Ivorians, NOT by French.......
> The french soldiers rape nobody.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the ivory coast intervention, and for those you say it is illegal and illegitim :
> 
> France receive a mandate from UNO, to act and send troops in this country
> France did an interventin of "international police".
> This kind of intervention os admitted by the International laws : France can send the troops to protect the lives of the french citizens in this country, if there is a big danger.
> france did it in 1978, in Kolwezi : the Legion's paras were dropped upon this city of Zaïre, to save the French.




I think you missed the point, there were atrocities committed by the French troops and you want to throw stones.  You are living in a glass house and are ignoring the atrocities committed by the French while blaming the entire world's troubles on the US.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32276



> The United Nations debate over Iraq has been a most welcome diversion, as France has long managed to support and direct bloody dictatorships, genocide and at-will military interventions across the map of Africa with self-assured impunity.



Your country commits the _exact same acts_ for which you are condemning the US?  I understand the US has much to work on, but you ignore your own to blast us?!

As I said before, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  The Iron Hand of the French army gives Africa the beating of their life and you are most worried about what the US is doing....  Priorities, you can do best by changing the way your country effects the world rather than attempting to lead ours in your own direction.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> CSM
> 
> 
> For the names, sorry, but you make me angry.
> 
> For my poor understanding of the US, maybe, but I don't thin you're representative of the whole US society....
> NAd I hope you don't believe that your understanding of the European countries and of France is better than mine for the US......
> 
> Amazing, your last sentence......
> in Europe, we believe that USA is a country who want to rule all over the world, new kind of colonialism, who lie to make wars, who cheat with international rules...
> 
> 
> And again, abvout the french army : you mean that a lot of foreigners are in, but no : only in the Foreign Legion, and less than 50% are really foreigners.
> USA use often foreigners : American Independance war(european advisors, like La Fayette, the polish Kosciuszko..........), secession war(Blenker's division....)....
> 
> So, why did you speak of that ?



Rather childish to resort to name calling when some person makes you angry...just an observation. you are correct, I neither speak for nor represent the whole of US society...nor do I wish to. I am very, very glad that I am allowed to hold my own views and opinions without fear of reprisal. I will also say that I am not unique either. I dont see a lot of Americans emigrating to France!

I do not pretend to understand France or any other European nation, but I do understand their policies and their impact on US national interests which leads very nicely into your description in the next sentence which I firmly believe describes very accurately France's actions regarding Iraq and the UN sanctions. Also, It has been publicly stated that France views the EU as a counterbalance to US power...a nice way of saying they are at odds with the US and its policies. An economic war, but a war geared towards world domination through economics.

I referred to the Foriegn Legion only to point out that the French are not above exploiting non-French people to do their dirty work. It is well known that the French Foreign Legion gets the hardest and most dangerous military tasks...the ones that the French military sees as necessary but are unwilling to spend French blood to accomplish. 

Yes, there are many many different nationalities that have been and still are in the US military. We are a nation comprised of many nationalities from all over the world. I do not view this as a bad thing. The fact that the French military does not allow anyone but French citizens into its military (other than the foreign Legion) speaks volumes about French nationalism, in my opinion.


----------



## Said1

CSM said:
			
		

> I referred to the Foriegn Legion only to point out that the French are not above exploiting non-French people to do their dirty work. It is well known that the French Foreign Legion gets the hardest and most dangerous military tasks...the ones that the French military sees as necessary but are unwilling to spend French blood to accomplish.
> 
> Yes, there are many many different nationalities that have been and still are in the US military. We are a nation comprised of many nationalities from all over the world. I do not view this as a bad thing. The fact that the French military does not allow anyone but French citizens into its military (other than the foreign Legion) speaks volumes about French nationalism, in my opinion.




Great post! Would give you points but I can't yet!!


----------



## padisha emperor

no1vote4 : your link is real, of course, but seems to come from a anti-french site......


CSM : 


> Rather childish to resort to name calling when some person makes you angry...just an observation. you are correct, I neither speak for nor represent the whole of US society...nor do I wish to. I am very, very glad that I am allowed to hold my own views and opinions without fear of reprisal. I will also say that I am not unique either. I dont see a lot of Americans emigrating to France!
> 
> I do not pretend to understand France or any other European nation, but I do understand their policies and their impact on US national interests which leads very nicely into your description in the next sentence which I firmly believe describes very accurately France's actions regarding Iraq and the UN sanctions. Also, It has been publicly stated that France views the EU as a counterbalance to US power...a nice way of saying they are at odds with the US and its policies. An economic war, but a war geared towards world domination through economics.
> 
> I referred to the Foriegn Legion only to point out that the French are not above exploiting non-French people to do their dirty work. It is well known that the French Foreign Legion gets the hardest and most dangerous military tasks...the ones that the French military sees as necessary but are unwilling to spend French blood to accomplish.
> 
> Yes, there are many many different nationalities that have been and still are in the US military. We are a nation comprised of many nationalities from all over the world. I do not view this as a bad thing. The fact that the French military does not allow anyone but French citizens into its military (other than the foreign Legion) speaks volumes about French nationalism, in my opinion.



maybe not a lot of American immigrate in France, but some do.
pierre Salinger, I believe. And lot of others.
Lot of UK's citizens come to live in France.......it shows that it is not a so awful country......



France consider that EU can be a counterbalance to US.
Yes. other countries think that.
Now, in the wolrd, there is ONE might : USA.
2 mights is better, for the concurrence, the competition.....
China can be this 2nd might.
EU too. When the propblems will be solved, soon I hope, the EU will be not far from US, even maybe 1st. but it is not the case now, so....


For the 2 last patrs of your message :

For the last time, more han half of the Foreign Legion are French. The Officers are french. When a soldier is wounded, he become French >> so, french blood.
the fact that Legion is often sent is that ther Lzegion is the best army coprs all over the world. Better even than the Navy Seals (and Seals are commandos, the Légion is a regular force)
So, it is not to let bleeding foreign blood. Come in a legion's camp : they are a entire part of the french amry. The french amry respect the Legion. the french people love them. Everybody consider that if a french foreign legion's memebr who is really foreigners is killed in action, a french is dead. Not a foreigner.

For the last part : 
You speak of nationality, yes, but I speak of the fact that some of the soldiers of Union belong to OTHER countries. La Fayette, or the blenker division : not a part of the US melting pot, but more like mercenaries.



> Not sure that the US army accept the french, or the english.
> The fact that the French military does not allow anyone but French citizens into its military (other than the foreign Legion) speaks volumes about French nationalism, in my opinion.



?????
what about french nationalism ? 
Do you know the french conception of the nation ? of Ernest RENAN ? the nation is the reunion of the people who want to live together.
Show me a larger conception....
But maybe I have bad understand your meaning. Can you explain to me ?


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> no1vote4 : your link is real, of course, but seems to come from a anti-french site......



That does not make it any less accurate.  Actually it isn't anti-french, more like anti-left.  It is one way we can actually get information that isn't always slanted leftwards.

And it doesn't negate my point.  Attempting to bash the US for actions that your government also takes part in is simply hypocritical.  You won't see me on a French site telling people how to run their government, I come to a US site to talk about how my government is doing things.  It might be best to make your own government perfect before attempting to change ours to your liking.

If all your government wants to do is be a counterpoint because they think there should be one regardless of shared belief then it simply is working against what it believes.  If it never does believe in the same things then it should leave our mutually beneficial NATO.

You too could take part in the same power with the US but simply chose to be against them only to be contrary, just for contrariness' sake not for logical and real differences.


----------



## padisha emperor

Oh...
and the Legion is not the only corps who is always sent in operation.
the TROUPES de MARINE are on the battlefield of all the french battles. Everywhere the french army is engaged >> Troupes de Marine. (Indochina, Algeria,Gulf, Rwanda, Kosovo, Ivory Coast.............)


----------



## padisha emperor

No1vote4 : for you, the left corrupt the information ?
What about the right ? the neocon, I think do the same !


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> No1vote4 : for you, the left corrupt the information ?
> What about the right ? the neocon, I think do the same !




Right, and therefore it is best to get more than one information source rather than trusting what you have been spoon fed by those who hold the same opinion.

As I said before information doesn't become inaccurate because it comes from a site that doesn't hold your opinion.  Sometimes it is more accurate than you want to believe.


----------



## padisha emperor

of course, several information sources is best than 1, above all when this one is like your opinion.

For your site :
I don't see it bad, but : imagine an anti Bush site : all the things you refuse will be here. You won't believe them because the ideology makes that they are maybe not correct.
I meant that your link's ideology MAY change the truth to kick France.
But it can be also correct.
I will search myself on the web, and will see


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> of course, several information sources is best than 1, above all when this one is like your opinion.
> 
> For your site :
> I don't see it bad, but : imagine an anti Bush site : all the things you refuse will be here. You won't believe them because the ideology makes that they are maybe not correct.
> I meant that your link's ideology MAY change the truth to kick France.
> But it can be also correct.
> I will search myself on the web, and will see




Fair 'nuff.

But an Anti-Bush site wouldn't necessarily be against my opinions.  While I thought he was better than Kerry, and ended up voting for his reelection, it was only slightly better in my opinion.


----------



## padisha emperor

Anti Bush, or anything else....
Anti USA, if you prefer >> no question of opinion.

and : Fair 'nuff ? what does it mean ?


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Anti Bush, or anything else....
> Anti USA, if you prefer >> no question of opinion.
> 
> and : Fair 'nuff ? what does it mean ?




It means fair enough.  Sorry, I used a coloquialism when clear language is necessary.


----------



## j07950

I was first alarmed by how stupid your comment was but then I saw you were only 20 years old and having myself lived in the US for 6 years I know how much young peole are ignorent...It's not your fault in a way, they only teach you about the history they want you to know. I did the whole junior high school and high school thing in NJ and it was a shock when I went back home. You guys are ignorent about what's out there, you believe everything you see on TV, and knowing that most of the media is controlled by your government or at least pressured into going it's way it's very scary. I've met a lot of americans who have gone around travelling the world and they now have such a different opinion, they are so much open minded and aware of what is really out there, and totally against the Bush policy, because that's all it is really. No one (from europe) hates the American people, we've got nothing against you people, I loved the people I met while living in the US, they are some of the nicest people I've ever met, all we disaprove of is the government in place. Clinton for instance was very much liked (appart from his "I did not have sexual intercourse blah blah, but then again he's a man like any other, he needs some love...). So don't think we've got a problem with america, we only do with the people who are governing it, because in the end, you have the right to be governed by your own people, only that those people in place today don't rightfully represent you. No hard feelings... Oh and if you wanted to attack France or any other country for that matter I'm sure you'd go through it as fast as you did with Irak right? How many soldiers and civilians have been killed since? Oh and is it over? Nevermind...
Wars are ugly, I think people will agree on that, think peace and stop being stupid and saying things such as "what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days?", that is insulting to the people who fought for freedom in europe from 1914-1945...and insulting to the people (among them French) who helped americans gain independance from Great Britain in 1776...


In responce of: ("Come one Kentucky what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days? Also if this does leed to a confertation I believe we would win. Also with the help of the British we would stomp through europe. You know whats more disturbing is, cause they don't like our policies they don't like us. Also if they want a fight I can think of many Americans who will give em' one hell of one. They should look at our record so far, only one we retreated from(for political puposes), and another one techniclly never lost nor won still going on. All the others we won so I glady so don't do it europe we don't want to hurt you")


----------



## dilloduck

and now you live where ??


----------



## freeandfun1

if you can't spell IGNORANT, I would be careful about calling others that.....


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I was first alarmed by how stupid your comment was but then I saw you were only 20 years old and having myself lived in the US for 6 years I know how much young peole are ignorent...It's not your fault in a way, they only teach you about the history they want you to know. I did the whole junior high school and high school thing in NJ and it was a shock when I went back home. You guys are ignorent about what's out there, you believe everything you see on TV, and knowing that most of the media is controlled by your government or at least pressured into going it's way it's very scary. I've met a lot of americans who have gone around travelling the world and they now have such a different opinion, they are so much open minded and aware of what is really out there, and totally against the Bush policy, because that's all it is really. No one (from europe) hates the American people, we've got nothing against you people, I loved the people I met while living in the US, they are some of the nicest people I've ever met, all we disaprove of is the government in place. Clinton for instance was very much liked (appart from his "I did not have sexual intercourse blah blah, but then again he's a man like any other, he needs some love...). So don't think we've got a problem with america, we only do with the people who are governing it, because in the end, you have the right to be governed by your own people, only that those people in place today don't rightfully represent you. No hard feelings... Oh and if you wanted to attack France or any other country for that matter I'm sure you'd go through it as fast as you did with Irak right? How many soldiers and civilians have been killed since? Oh and is it over? Nevermind...
> Wars are ugly, I think people will agree on that, think peace and stop being stupid and saying things such as "what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days?", that is insulting to the people who fought for freedom in europe from 1914-1945...and insulting to the people (among them French) who helped americans gain independance from Great Britain in 1776...
> 
> 
> In responce of: ("Come one Kentucky what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days? Also if this does leed to a confertation I believe we would win. Also with the help of the British we would stomp through europe. You know whats more disturbing is, cause they don't like our policies they don't like us. Also if they want a fight I can think of many Americans who will give em' one hell of one. They should look at our record so far, only one we retreated from(for political puposes), and another one techniclly never lost nor won still going on. All the others we won so I glady so don't do it europe we don't want to hurt you")





This is one of the most IGNORANT posts I have ever read.

I have lived overseas and I travel overseas often and I know that it is YOUR history of the world that is based on IGNORANCE!


----------



## Hobbit

j07950 said:
			
		

> I was first alarmed by how stupid your comment was but then I saw you were only 20 years old and having myself lived in the US for 6 years I know how much young peole are ignorent...It's not your fault in a way, they only teach you about the history they want you to know. I did the whole junior high school and high school thing in NJ and it was a shock when I went back home. You guys are ignorent about what's out there, you believe everything you see on TV, and knowing that most of the media is controlled by your government or at least pressured into going it's way it's very scary. I've met a lot of americans who have gone around travelling the world and they now have such a different opinion, they are so much open minded and aware of what is really out there, and totally against the Bush policy, because that's all it is really. No one (from europe) hates the American people, we've got nothing against you people, I loved the people I met while living in the US, they are some of the nicest people I've ever met, all we disaprove of is the government in place. Clinton for instance was very much liked (appart from his "I did not have sexual intercourse blah blah, but then again he's a man like any other, he needs some love...). So don't think we've got a problem with america, we only do with the people who are governing it, because in the end, you have the right to be governed by your own people, only that those people in place today don't rightfully represent you. No hard feelings... Oh and if you wanted to attack France or any other country for that matter I'm sure you'd go through it as fast as you did with Irak right? How many soldiers and civilians have been killed since? Oh and is it over? Nevermind...
> Wars are ugly, I think people will agree on that, think peace and stop being stupid and saying things such as "what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days?", that is insulting to the people who fought for freedom in europe from 1914-1945...and insulting to the people (among them French) who helped americans gain independance from Great Britain in 1776...
> 
> 
> In responce of: ("Come one Kentucky what are we gonna do with France after we roll through in 4 days? Also if this does leed to a confertation I believe we would win. Also with the help of the British we would stomp through europe. You know whats more disturbing is, cause they don't like our policies they don't like us. Also if they want a fight I can think of many Americans who will give em' one hell of one. They should look at our record so far, only one we retreated from(for political puposes), and another one techniclly never lost nor won still going on. All the others we won so I glady so don't do it europe we don't want to hurt you")




You like us but hate our government?  That doesn't wash.  We elected this government and the majority of us will back it up.  I'm also quite insulted that you think we're so ignorant and willing to be led like sheep by television.  If that were true, we'd love France and hate Bush or have you seen a single piece of news since 2000?  I make sure I'm informed.  I support Bush and the war, especially after actually meeting some of the people affected by it.  France opposes us because it's the thing to do, and if this hostility keeps going down this road, we could find ourselves in another world war.  Also, what are we supposed to think about how France feels about us when many French citizens are in Iraq fighting for *Zarqawi*?  So you can take your Euro arrogance, your condecending attitude, and your opinion that those of us in the red states are just ignorant and shove it up your colon, because I don't wanna hear it.


----------



## nosarcasm

Europe's internal politics concerning the EU are driven by a French desire for domination, A German desire for cooperation within the framework of the EU
and the believe that it is in the best German interest to have a strong alliance with France. Why is that. As a result of WW1 and WW2 most German scholars assume that the rivalry for the domination of mainland Europe led to the (for Germany) disastrous outcome. The US was the only one major power
that after WW1 tried to arrange a peace among equals that was rejected by the French. After WW2 the communist threat made it important for the US to support Western Germany and the occupation and the generous Care packages convinced the Germans that the US is willing to accept them as an ally. (Thanks for those who donated care packages at a time when Germans
were universally hated) Now Germany is a very secular state with a (imo) too peace loving population. There is a desire for peace at all costs and a natural
rejection of all military solutions to conflicts. Thats why Schroeder and his leftwing coalation were able to win reelection by rejecting the Iraq war.

During the genocide in former Yugoslavia the same leftwing parties argued
against intervening because the UN did not approve first. Even the conservatives then in power were against it. A conservative minister resigned
and put out ads on tv about the war in Yugoslavia that changed the publics
reluctance. It showed a private airliner with tourists heading for vacation.
Then it brakes through the clouds and a military transport is shown with
gunfire from the ground and pictures of slaughtered civilians. Then the 
historic anti guerillia war against Yugoslav partisans did not work anymore
as a reason not to intervene in Yugoslavia. The conflict also proved that
without the US miliary the EU lacks the power to threaten dictators even
within Europe. 

The Iraq war and the European publics rejection led to a decline in the relationship across the atlantic. For the German public (shamefully) it was too close to an imperial war. They must have forgot the pictures that I saw on German TV in the 80's of murdered Kurdish women and children, slaughtered
with chemical weapons. The white residue next to the mouth while they are laying out their in the street made it obvious. 

Now the US administration made a lot of mistakes that did not help.
First Rumsfeld Old Europe remark was offending national pride and hardened
positions. The multiple reasons for the war in Iraq where not looking honest either. 

A simple, we have to take him out for humanitarian reason from the beginning and the democratization argument might still have won the day.

During the initial war the US played divide and conquer by pressuring some EU states for support. While it had some success in terms of real troops on the ground only the traditional allies Netherlands, Poland and UK were in + the Spanish. With the loss of Spain due to elections the US has created a stronger EU identity. 

Still within the EU there are other fights mostly about trade and money.

The new Eastern EU states have a vital interest in Germany, because of its
geographic position it is the closest major economy that has access to their markets.

Within the EU, France,Germany and the UK have some meetings where
the UK and its allies reprents more a market economy approach while
France & Germany are more socialistic orientated. In the case of Germany that can change once the conservatives get back in power.

In Germany there is strong resentment against immigration and especially 
against Muslims after 9/11.  Germany was in the 30 years war 1618-48
the place for the showdown between protestants and Catholics. After
the peace of westphalia it was agreed upon to keep religion out of politics.
This is one factor in the irrational hate vs Bush. While in Germany religion
is taught at school (protestant,Catholic, Philosophy for the rest) politicans
hardly even mention god or faith in politics. Thats one of the reasons why 
Bush rubs many people the wrong way. 

France is a very secular country with aspirations to be the Grand nation.
They use anti americanism to stroke their own ego. Within the EU they fight
for money for their farmers. By leading the EU they hope to contain German power and aspirations. 

The French poster here has some delusions about the grandeur of their army.
My cousin served with the German army in Bosnia and he said he was ashamed how cheap their equipment was in comparison to the US troops.

When you look on how much money the different nations put in their military then you know Europe is trailing pretty badly. In term of economics the EU
and US are about on par. Because of the international trade it is unfortunate
that at the moment their is the pissing contest going on. But in the end
Islamic extremist are the enemy and all our multinationals are invested
both in the US and EU. Time to realize that and in the next crisis unite
to make Bin Laden and Company pay.

But I am a minority currently. 

Not to mention the problems many Germans have with the subject of
nationalism and national pride. Another time I d go into that.


----------



## freeandfun1

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> Europe's internal politics concerning the EU are driven by a French desire for domination, A German desire for cooperation within the framework of the EU
> and the believe that it is in the best German interest to have a strong alliance with France. Why is that. As a result of WW1 and WW2 most German scholars assume that the rivalry for the domination of mainland Europe led to the (for Germany) disastrous outcome. The US was the only one major power
> that after WW1 tried to arrange a peace among equals that was rejected by the French. After WW2 the communist threat made it important for the US to support Western Germany and the occupation and the generous Care packages convinced the Germans that the US is willing to accept them as an ally. (Thanks for those who donated care packages at a time when Germans
> were universally hated) Now Germany is a very secular state with a (imo) too peace loving population. There is a desire for peace at all costs and a natural
> rejection of all military solutions to conflicts. Thats why Schroeder and his leftwing coalation were able to win reelection by rejecting the Iraq war.
> 
> During the genocide in former Yugoslavia the same leftwing parties argued
> against intervening because the UN did not approve first. Even the conservatives then in power were against it. A conservative minister resigned
> and put out ads on tv about the war in Yugoslavia that changed the publics
> reluctance. It showed a private airliner with tourists heading for vacation.
> Then it brakes through the clouds and a military transport is shown with
> gunfire from the ground and pictures of slaughtered civilians. Then the
> historic anti guerillia war against Yugoslav partisans did not work anymore
> as a reason not to intervene in Yugoslavia. The conflict also proved that
> without the US miliary the EU lacks the power to threaten dictators even
> within Europe.
> 
> The Iraq war and the European publics rejection led to a decline in the relationship across the atlantic. For the German public (shamefully) it was too close to an imperial war. They must have forgot the pictures that I saw on German TV in the 80's of murdered Kurdish women and children, slaughtered
> with chemical weapons. The white residue next to the mouth while they are laying out their in the street made it obvious.
> 
> Now the US administration made a lot of mistakes that did not help.
> First Rumsfeld Old Europe remark was offending national pride and hardened
> positions. The multiple reasons for the war in Iraq where not looking honest either.
> 
> A simple, we have to take him out for humanitarian reason from the beginning and the democratization argument might still have won the day.
> 
> During the initial war the US played divide and conquer by pressuring some EU states for support. While it had some success in terms of real troops on the ground only the traditional allies Netherlands, Poland and UK were in + the Spanish. With the loss of Spain due to elections the US has created a stronger EU identity.
> 
> Still within the EU there are other fights mostly about trade and money.
> 
> The new Eastern EU states have a vital interest in Germany, because of its
> geographic position it is the closest major economy that has access to their markets.
> 
> Within the EU, France,Germany and the UK have some meetings where
> the UK and its allies reprents more a market economy approach while
> France & Germany are more socialistic orientated. In the case of Germany that can change once the conservatives get back in power.
> 
> In Germany there is strong resentment against immigration and especially
> against Muslims after 9/11.  Germany was in the 30 years war 1618-48
> the place for the showdown between protestants and Catholics. After
> the peace of westphalia it was agreed upon to keep religion out of politics.
> This is one factor in the irrational hate vs Bush. While in Germany religion
> is taught at school (protestant,Catholic, Philosophy for the rest) politicans
> hardly even mention god or faith in politics. Thats one of the reasons why
> Bush rubs many people the wrong way.
> 
> France is a very secular country with aspirations to be the Grand nation.
> They use anti americanism to stroke their own ego. Within the EU they fight
> for money for their farmers. By leading the EU they hope to contain German power and aspirations.
> 
> The French poster here has some delusions about the grandeur of their army.
> My cousin served with the German army in Bosnia and he said he was ashamed how cheap their equipment was in comparison to the US troops.
> 
> When you look on how much money the different nations put in their military then you know Europe is trailing pretty badly. In term of economics the EU
> and US are about on par. Because of the international trade it is unfortunate
> that at the moment their is the pissing contest going on. But in the end
> Islamic extremist are the enemy and all our multinationals are invested
> both in the US and EU. Time to realize that and in the next crisis unite
> to make Bin Laden and Company pay.
> 
> But I am a minority currently.
> 
> Not to mention the problems many Germans have with the subject of
> nationalism and national pride. Another time I d go into that.




nice summation of things!  i think you have nailed it.


----------



## padisha emperor

freeandfun,1 why, when someboy doesn't think like you, do you call him IGNORANT ?

I agree with j07950's post.

And you can like the US people and dislike his government. I do that.

All the people who vote for Bush didn't necessary think exactly like him. 
Example : in Germany or France, the lastelections, the extrem-right political parties did quite good results. But it doesn't mean that the voters are fascists and racists. Most of them where only hopeless, and thought that with them, maybe the things would change.
Look at Chirac's re-election : with 80%....But not 80% are behind him. It was to stop Le Pen's advance.
Maybe some americans don't agree with siome sides of Bush policy, but are affraid by terrorism....and then they vote for Bush.


So, it is possible, you can hate a government, and like the inhabitants of this country.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> freeandfun,1 why, when someboy doesn't think like you, do you call him IGNORANT ?
> 
> I agree with j07950's post.
> 
> And you can like the US people and dislike his government. I do that.
> 
> All the people who vote for Bush didn't necessary think exactly like him.
> Example : in Germany or France, the lastelections, the extrem-right political parties did quite good results. But it doesn't mean that the voters are fascists and racists. Most of them where only hopeless, and thought that with them, maybe the things would change.
> Look at Chirac's re-election : with 80%....But not 80% are behind him. It was to stop Le Pen's advance.
> Maybe some americans don't agree with siome sides of Bush policy, but are affraid by terrorism....and then they vote for Bush.
> 
> 
> So, it is possible, you can hate a government, and like the inhabitants of this country.


  garbage ,Dish-----you like the liberal politics of some American people--not the people themselves.


----------



## freeandfun1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> freeandfun,1 why, when someboy doesn't think like you, do you call him IGNORANT ?
> 
> I agree with j07950's post.
> 
> And you can like the US people and dislike his government. I do that.
> 
> All the people who vote for Bush didn't necessary think exactly like him.
> Example : in Germany or France, the lastelections, the extrem-right political parties did quite good results. But it doesn't mean that the voters are fascists and racists. Most of them where only hopeless, and thought that with them, maybe the things would change.
> Look at Chirac's re-election : with 80%....But not 80% are behind him. It was to stop Le Pen's advance.
> Maybe some americans don't agree with siome sides of Bush policy, but are affraid by terrorism....and then they vote for Bush.
> 
> 
> So, it is possible, you can hate a government, and like the inhabitants of this country.



Perhaps it was because he is making IGNORANT ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, it doesn't help that he can't spell what he is trying to call somebody.  That does not reflect well upon him and it actually shows that he is more IGNORANT than those he is assailing.


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> And you can like the US people and dislike his government. I do that.



Yeah but don't expect us to give a rat's behind about how the French think we should run our country. I see the Frenchie's dissaproval as a sign that we are doing quite well. :teeth:



			
				padisha emperor said:
			
		

> All the people who vote for Bush didn't necessary think exactly like him.



Well, what did you expect? Are we all G-Dub clones or something??



			
				padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Maybe some americans don't agree with siome sides of Bush policy, but are affraid by terrorism....and then they vote for Bush.



Was there a single terrorist attack on us in 2004? No there was not. He mustn't be doing too incredibly bad.


----------



## Said1

. :clap1:   









Ha,ha, I kill me!


----------



## j07950

I agree with a lot of what all of you guys are saying; My calling some of you ignorant (yes ignorant and not ignorent, then again I'm not a native english speaker, I'd like to see you speak another language) has to do with some of the stupid comments being said, like rolling over france in 4 days...how stupid is that. All it's saying is that you can't get enough of fighting. Plus, even if your equipment is much beter and you've got such a huge army (which I agree with) you still haven't gotten anywhere in Irak. And the french people you say are fighting among rebels in Irak are extremists and muslim to begin with, you can't say they reprensent us, otherwise you could say that the brits are as guilty as we are, as most of the rebels involved in al qaeda went through the UK at some point...so that's another stupid comment.
Not going along with the US is not trying to challenge them no matter what. I don't remember France being so hostile towards the US when Clinton was in power. I don't remember being hostile to intervening in yougoslavia, where EU troops are still operating (among them the french, and few if no US troops). If we can't disagree with what the US is doing then where does this bring us. That would mean that the US government could go on about doing whatever they want, where would be world stability. 
I don't know whats wrong with disagreeing on attacking a country without UN approval nor the support of multilateral forces, saying they have weapons of mass destruction when none have been found, saying they're a threat when the army is almost none existant. If Saddam Hussein wasn't ousted after the golf war then why now, what for?
What happened to the idea of the Sovereign state brought on by the treaty of Westphalia? You can't attack another state with no real good reason, obviously the UN didn't think their was one otherwise it would have backed up the US. We chose not to, just like the UN and many many other countries...how does this make us an enemy? 
No one is telling you how to run your country, only that on the world stage you should count with other nations from europe, asia etc... Because you can't decide on your own and for the wrong reasons. Because what were the real reasons? No one really knows. What we do know is that this war boosted your economy, because of all the money put into building weapons etc... creating jobs... then giving the reconstrution contracts to US companies (not crying about not having gotten any, don't really care personaly, just saying its funny how the biggest contracts were given to US companies), also how the oil pits have more soldiers around them than most cities in irak. 
Then you wounder why the US is present in Irak and not in places like Darfur (Ethnic cleansing), in tchetchnya, Eastern Congo, Zimbabwe and many other places where people are being killed either by their own government or by rebel groups. Where is the US if it is to be a world leader-cop without the support or opinion of other nations???
Maybee it's because there is nothing interesting in those countries. Maybee that sending money (which in most cases never actually reaches destination) makes them feel less guilty. I'm not saying that the US is the only at fault, but I'm saying if Irak then why not all these other places where more people have been killed than in irak?


PS: I'm sure most of you aren't ignorant, I was aiming young people (talking primarily to that 20 year old I replied to, did you read?) don't take things so personaly...Most of you guys are are probably over 30 and have more experience than even I have, but think a bit more about what you say, and think as a citizen of the world and not only as an american, it's world peace that is at risk, not just the United State's...


----------



## 5stringJeff

j07950 said:
			
		

> PS: I'm sure most of you aren't ignorant, I was aiming young people (talking primarily to that 20 year old I replied to, did you read?) don't take things so personaly...Most of you guys are are probably over 30 and have more experience than even I have, but think a bit more about what you say, and think as a citizen of the world and not only as an american, it's world peace that is at risk, not just the United State's...



And here is where the paradigm shifts.  You see, we don't consider ourselves "citizens of the world" here.  We consider ourselves Americans first, and then usually as a citizen of our state (I am a native Texan, for example).  The whole concept of "world citizenship" is about as foreign to us as escargot and Wang Chung.

And by the way, I'm only 28.


----------



## j07950

That just highlights your individualist state...it's such a shame you can't look beyond the US and think more of the world...this is probably why the US never agreed to sign the kyoto treaty...just too selfish...can't quiet give a damn about the rest of the world as long as it's economy is doing fine...

Ps: 28? not too bad...


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> That just highlights your individualist state...it's such a shame you can't look beyond the US and think more of the world...this is probably why the US never agreed to sign the kyoto treaty...just too selfish...can't quiet give a damn about the rest of the world as long as it's economy is doing fine...



I REALLY think you missed his point, but I'll let Jeff speak for himself.


----------



## j07950

I got his point...which makes sence because I know how patriotic americans are, but I'm saying look beyond that otherwise you'll miss what's really at stake...


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I got his point...



No you didn't get his point, which is probably why you mentioned Kyoto. BTW, how does Kyoto coincide with Jeff's post?


----------



## freeandfun1

fruthermore, don't you think all the aid we give - government and private - to the world is an indication that we understand that we are PART of a world community?  And no European, Asian, etc. should be preaching to us about nationalism.  Your nationalism has caused a lot of wars which we have had to bail you out of.  We are happy and content where we are and we really don't need to be part of your group.  We have our own homeland.

And by the way, I am American by birth, but Texan by the Grace of God!


----------



## j07950

I was highlighting the point that thinking of yourself as a texan or an american and not as a citizen of the world is the wrong way to go...I am aware of the whole patriotic thing, which is great but you can't stop there... the Kyoto treaty is there only as an example to show that americans (the government for that matter as I'm sure the people wouldn't think signing on would be such a bad thing) think of themselves first and not of the rest of the world.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> fruthermore, don't you think all the aid we give - government and private - to the world is an indication that we understand that we are PART of a world community?  And no European, Asian, etc. should be preaching to us about nationalism.  Your nationalism has caused a lot of wars which we have had to bail you out of.  We are happy and content where we are and we really don't need to be part of your group.  We have our own homeland.
> 
> And by the way, I am American by birth, but Texan by the Grace of God!



How does financial aid make you part of a world community when you don't listen to what other countries have to say... you act as individualists... Don't talk about wars you've bailed us out of...how old is your country's history??? really!!! And if it wasn't for France you'd be british...so don't talk about countries bailing out other countries...you did the right thing and so did we, it was for world peace so don't hold us accountable for it...we don't.
Having your own homeland is fine but you're still part of this world...you can't flee.


----------



## Said1

> I was highlighting the point that thinking of yourself as a texan or an american and not as a citizen of the world is the wrong way to go...I am aware of the whole patriotic thing, which is great but you can't stop there... the Kyoto treaty is there only as an example to show that americans (the government for that matter as I'm sure the people wouldn't think signing on would be such a bad thing) think of themselves first and not of the rest of the world.




That's a pretty shitty thing to say. Now I don't feel so bad about calling you an idiot, which is exactly what you are.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Having your own homeland is fine but you're still part of this world...you can't flee.





 :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## j07950

How is that stupid...?
I'm aware Americans, as people, are very generous, I lived in NJ 6 years so I know. But this government under Bush is after everything it can get (the Bush family is as corrupt as it can be, don't ask me to say how just yet, got to go get some sleep, I will tomorrow if you want). I don't know what is so stupid about thinking of the world instead of looking out only for US interests...you probably think the kyoto treaty is stupid right?


----------



## nosarcasm

well as a German living in the US it gets pretty crowded with all these
labels.

Idahonian, German, American, European. There is no space for world
citizen. And de facto non of us is. I have resided in England and Belgium
too for some time. But wherever I was the world citizen stuff is more 
political correctness then reality. Do you want to give out your tax money 
to pay for unemployed in Iran. Pay for welfare in Sub Saharan Africa?
If not the world citizen stuff is a cop out. You may feel morally superior
to the normal folks that just hang in for their nation state but I personally
think it is unrealistic for you to take responsibility for everyone in the world.

The Us despite their perceived nationalism is in a way less nationalistic then
Germany. Germans in general have trouble just saying to be proud to be German because it reminds them of Hitler & Company. Still overwhelmingly
they trust and support the central government and not states rights.

In the US their is a healthy distrust against the government. Rule of thumb seems to be the farther from DC you are the less the Feds are trusted.

Nobody likes paying taxes and not getting a return, especially in the US. 
Thats why this world citizen idea will never fly. The US made it to the top
by being an Isolationist country. And it worked very well. THey only intervened in Europe because of a hegemonic threat to their country if
Germany and Japan would have taken over it might have hurt them in the long run. And like Vietnam and Iraq and any other foreign war has shown, it is expensive to meddle in other nations politics. And the returns are not really
worth it if their is no threat to the US. Iraq and Vietnam were perceived as threats but still (luckily) at the end the US tends to check the checkbook to see if it is really worth it. 

This makes European blabber about imperialism so childish. 

The Kyoto agreement was rejected because it would cost the US the most money and is not really in their interest. Its easy for others who would not have to pay the tab to demand the US pays for it. 

I personally think Global warming is happening but like with anything else
you have to gradually upgrade your enviroment standards. Too extreme
changes hurt the economy and in the long run the development of
more enviroment friendly technologies. 

There is a reason why gene manipulated food is mostly developed in the US.
Out of political correctness the Europeans have decided that it is too much of a risk to fully invest in this technology. But they forgot about all the developing nations that are in desperate need for crops that can grow
in harsh enviroments.

So in the end the blaming of the US is imo unjustified. Yeah the US is selfish but that is part of the capitalistic mindset and brought the country up to being the most developed country. Socialism is failing so I am not convinced that listening to their recipe on global warming or world citizenship would
be a wise idea.


----------



## j07950

I'd like to say I agree with you...what you're saying is right...But even if they have succeeded as an individualist nation I don't know what's wrong with trying to  adhere to making the world a better place. If signing on to the kyoto treaty is going to cost the most to the US it's because they are the biggest industrialized country, but then again they have the biggest economy. If countries like japan and maybee russia (might sign on) can bare the cost than why not the US...I'm not saying right now but gradually, this makes sence. The US represent over 36% of gas emissions worldwide...now I say it's possible to cut down. If not for us, for our children and their children etc...gene manipulated food would indeed be useful to countries such as in Africa, which is why Genetically Modified Food is tested in europe but will not be used. I'd like to think they could be in africa.
When I say world citizen what I really mean is look at the issues around the world and try to solve them for the good of the world, I'm not talking about taxes or aything like that...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'd like to say I agree with you...what you're saying is right...But even if they have succeeded as an individualist nation I don't know what's wrong with trying to  adhere to making the world a better place. If signing on to the kyoto treaty is going to cost the most to the US it's because they are the biggest industrialized country, but then again they have the biggest economy. If countries like japan and maybee russia (might sign on) can bare the cost than why not the US...I'm not saying right now but gradually, this makes sence. The US represent over 36% of gas emissions worldwide...now I say it's possible to cut down. If not for us, for our children and their children etc...gene manipulated food would indeed be useful to countries such as in Africa, which is why Genetically Modified Food is tested in europe but will not be used. I'd like to think they could be in africa.
> When I say world citizen what I really mean is look at the issues around the world and try to solve them for the good of the world, I'm not talking about taxes or aything like that...



Which country does more than the US for the good of the world ? Yes we are wealthier so are we gonna get down to percentages or what? If other countries simply just took care of their own share and not continually look to the US to me the "mother" , MUCH more would be accomplished. People may even want to stay in their OWN country to advance themselves and be free!!


----------



## j07950

Don't really understand what you are saying...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> ...When I say world citizen what I really mean is look at the issues around the world and try to solve them for the good of the world, I'm not talking about taxes or aything like that...



Interesting point of view. From my perspective, every single time the US tries to solve a "World Issue", there are folks who come flying out of nowhere and bash the hell out of the US and it's foriegn policy. The other thing is, despite the idealistic view to the contrary, any action to resolve "World Issues" costs money. In the US, that money comes from the taxpayer.

What disturbs me the most about international relations is the fact that the rest of the world wants US money, resources, and assets but rejects US philosophy. The US is a capitalistic society; it was founded on Christian principles. Many of the 200 some odd nations in the world today flat out reject capitalism and Christianity. Could there possibly be a connection between the US's apparent success and these two principles? Many of those 200 plus nations are socialist, despotic, or toltarian states. It is absolutely necessary for those governments to blame the US for their ills to stay in power, yet it is their own philosophies that keep them from becoming rich and powerful.


----------



## nosarcasm

CSM said:
			
		

> Many of those 200 plus nations are socialist, despotic, or toltarian states. It is absolutely necessary for those governments to blame the US for their ills to stay in power, yet it is their own philosophies that keep them from becoming rich and powerful.




What is your definition of socialism. Just so I get a better understanding of your point.


----------



## j07950

How is it that there are so many connections between the Bush Family and the following:

Nazi Party (1942) Prescott Bush------read this: http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_link.asp

GHW Bush, bin Laden family 
(Carlyle Group, CIA, Salam bin Laden) read this----: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9468&fcategory_desc=Under Reported

GW Bush, James R. Bath (Salam bin Laden, Binladin Group, Arbusto oil company, Caterair) read this: http://www.g-vision.com/newsletter/connection.shtml

     Here are just some of the people involved, let us not forget that the Bushs, bin Ladens, and other were involved in attempting to get a pipeline through Afghanistan and the Taliban wanted too much ransom...The United States Government paid the Taliban millions to trash their opium crops.

     So this pipeline through Afghanistan was a partnership between, get this!!!  ENRON CORP! and Bechtel Corp., General Electric, and Unocal 76.  Now the new President of Afghanistan is Hamid Karzi, a former employee of Unocal 76, and  the Bush Administration Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, former employee of Unocal 76!

     Now the United States was having problems with the Taliban and completing this pipeline.  The Taliban was not cooperating with the United States (actually the Taliban was not going to accept the little scraps President Bush was offering for cooperation, and was blackmailing them for more).  When Osama bin Laden completed his devastating act of cowardice he actually helped President Bush and his buddys a whollllllle lot!

     Now that there was the war on terror the United States of Bush could wrangle there way into unseating the Taliban in Afghanistan, and get rid of Saddam in Iraq!  The latter as a token of LOVE for his father (and a little oil profit cherry on top!)

Other things to look at:
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4664358,00.html
- http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#pipeline
- http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=saudi


Now obviously it can be said that politicians, and presidents are all in some way corrupt (Chirac for that matter is...) but this is amazing, it's all been mostly avoided by media in the US, hummm pressure???
Anyway I hope this has helped you somewhat in seeing how war in connected to personal interest...not the americans but the people who are running it.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Interesting point of view. From my perspective, every single time the US tries to solve a "World Issue", there are folks who come flying out of nowhere and bash the hell out of the US and it's foriegn policy. The other thing is, despite the idealistic view to the contrary, any action to resolve "World Issues" costs money. In the US, that money comes from the taxpayer.
> 
> What disturbs me the most about international relations is the fact that the rest of the world wants US money, resources, and assets but rejects US philosophy. The US is a capitalistic society; it was founded on Christian principles. Many of the 200 some odd nations in the world today flat out reject capitalism and Christianity. Could there possibly be a connection between the US's apparent success and these two principles? Many of those 200 plus nations are socialist, despotic, or toltarian states. It is absolutely necessary for those governments to blame the US for their ills to stay in power, yet it is their own philosophies that keep them from becoming rich and powerful.



You have a point, I'll agree with what you are saying but if only the US solved "World Issues" without looking for personal interests (I'm talking about the people running the show, not you guys) then I'd say yes it's not fair that america has to bail out everyone and use tax payers money to do so. Then again I think the money the US is spending trying to solve world issues is proportional to it's economy, I'm sure european countries aren't too far off in handing out cash (again proportional to it's economy)...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> How is it that there are so many connections between the Bush Family and the following:
> 
> Nazi Party (1942) Prescott Bush------read this: http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_link.asp
> 
> GHW Bush, bin Laden family
> (Carlyle Group, CIA, Salam bin Laden) read this----: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9468&fcategory_desc=Under Reported
> 
> GW Bush, James R. Bath (Salam bin Laden, Binladin Group, Arbusto oil company, Caterair) read this: http://www.g-vision.com/newsletter/connection.shtml
> 
> Here are just some of the people involved, let us not forget that the Bushs, bin Ladens, and other were involved in attempting to get a pipeline through Afghanistan and the Taliban wanted too much ransom...The United States Government paid the Taliban millions to trash their opium crops.
> 
> So this pipeline through Afghanistan was a partnership between, get this!!!  ENRON CORP! and Bechtel Corp., General Electric, and Unocal 76.  Now the new President of Afghanistan is Hamid Karzi, a former employee of Unocal 76, and  the Bush Administration Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, former employee of Unocal 76!
> 
> Now the United States was having problems with the Taliban and completing this pipeline.  The Taliban was not cooperating with the United States (actually the Taliban was not going to accept the little scraps President Bush was offering for cooperation, and was blackmailing them for more).  When Osama bin Laden completed his devastating act of cowardice he actually helped President Bush and his buddys a whollllllle lot!
> 
> Now that there was the war on terror the United States of Bush could wrangle there way into unseating the Taliban in Afghanistan, and get rid of Saddam in Iraq!  The latter as a token of LOVE for his father (and a little oil profit cherry on top!)
> 
> Other things to look at:
> - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4664358,00.html
> - http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp#pipeline
> - http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=saudi
> 
> 
> Now obviously it can be said that politicians, and presidents are all in some way corrupt (Chirac for that matter is...) but this is amazing, it's all been mostly avoided by media in the US, hummm pressure???
> Anyway I hope this has helped you somewhat in seeing how war in connected to personal interest...not the americans but the people who are running it.



Some times personal and national interests run concurrently. These connection have been made before-(Michael Moore Money) and people rejected the implications.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> You have a point, I'll agree with what you are saying but if only the US solved "World Issues" without looking for personal interests (I'm talking about the people running the show, not you guys) then I'd say yes it's not fair that america has to bail out everyone and use tax payers money to do so. Then again I think the money the US is spending trying to solve world issues is proportional to it's economy, I'm sure european countries aren't too far off in handing out cash (again proportional to it's economy)...



 The crux of the matter seems to be that you think the US should not look out for its own interests. Being a US citizen (and a damned Yankee to boot!) I am very glad that our government and our leaders look out for US interests first. There are far too many countries, ideologies, religions, etc. in the world today that would like to see the destruction of the United States. 

Additionally, I think that many Americans resent being told how and when they should spend their hard earned money by foriegn governments, international organizations, and citizens of other nations, especially when those entities have specious motives.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Some times personal and national interests run concurrently. These connection have been made before-(Michael Moore Money) and people rejected the implications.



How is that a benefit to the american people, you are the ones paying for this and its the people who are governing you that are filling their pokets with cash... I don't see how that's a national interest?!
Maybee you feel safer but that's only due to the state of fear that was brought on you.
Did you actually read the articles whose links I posted? Are you saying that's fine, you don't care???


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> The crux of the matter seems to be that you think the US should not look out for its own interests. Being a US citizen (and a damned Yankee to boot!) I am very glad that our government and our leaders look out for US interests first. There are far too many countries, ideologies, religions, etc. in the world today that would like to see the destruction of the United States.
> 
> Additionally, I think that many Americans resent being told how and when they should spend their hard earned money by foriegn governments, international organizations, and citizens of other nations, especially when those entities have specious motives.



You didn't get what I was saying, the US should look out for its own interests in staying on top and not being threatened, but something is wrong when the government in place is corrupt and is the only real winner in these wars (again read what I posted and the links).


----------



## nosarcasm

the Nazi - Bush link is bullshit, and yes the press covers this too. I saw a docu about it on the history channel. 

Bush was no Lindbergh and was not into the Nazis. 


Yes the Bush family does and did business with the Bin Laden family.
Hardly a surprise as both being in the oil business. And Osama is at
least officially an outcast to his family.

Moore pipeline bullshit was quite a conjecture. Lets face it, Afghanistan
has always been a wild place, the British got their ass kicked, the Russians
and the US concentrates on Kabul and the hunt for Bin Laden and avoids
the local warlords and tribes. This is not a secure setup for an oil pipeline.

The fat fuck could have made a solid case against Bush based on incompetence instead he throws out this conspiracy bullshit.
For some thought about the pipeline story go here 

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html


Bush 1 did not invade Iraq, and he runs the family business. We can speculate
what the true reason for the attack on Iraq was or pick on of the many
the administration handed out but your conspiracy story is way weak.

Read Patrick J. Buchanan "Where the Right went Wrong" I think he nailed the true reason for the war and how it all came together. 

And I could make a better case for an oligarchy then this shit. The whole friggin congress is out for themselves but the presidency because of the job identification is less influenced by money woes. Not to mention humans have a need for a legacy. Presidents are in the spotlight and less able to dodge
the press. Clinton these days can not even hide his friggin affairs. Kennedy
had a free pass, these days no president has.

While the press was initially after 9/11 a little bit in a cheerleading mode
this has to do with the rally around the flag syndrom. But I can assure
you that they are now quite critical of the President.

You should stop listening only to the smug European press. I lived in both places and they are not holier then the Americans. 

PS: How old are you btw ?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> You didn't get what I was saying, the US should look out for its own interests in staying on top and not being threatened, but something is wrong when the government in place is corrupt and is the only real winner in these wars (again read what I posted and the links).



 I disagree that our government is corrupt. I have read your links and found lots of allegations and assertions and accusations and no proof.


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> the Nazi - Bush link is bullshit, and yes the press covers this too. I saw a docu about it on the history channel.
> 
> Bush was no Lindbergh and was not into the Nazis.
> 
> 
> Yes the Bush family does and did business with the Bin Laden family.
> Hardly a surprise as both being in the oil business. And Osama is at
> least officially an outcast to his family.
> 
> Moore pipeline bullshit was quite a conjecture. Lets face it, Afghanistan
> has always been a wild place, the British got their ass kicked, the Russians
> and the US concentrates on Kabul and the hunt for Bin Laden and avoids
> the local warlords and tribes. This is not a secure setup for an oil pipeline.
> 
> The fat fuck could have made a solid case against Bush based on incompetence instead he throws out this conspiracy bullshit.
> For some thought about the pipeline story go here
> 
> http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html
> 
> 
> Bush 1 did not invade Iraq, and he runs the family business. We can speculate
> what the true reason for the attack on Iraq was or pick on of the many
> the administration handed out but your conspiracy story is way weak.
> 
> Read Patrick J. Buchanan "Where the Right went Wrong" I think he nailed the true reason for the war and how it all came together.
> 
> And I could make a better case for an oligarchy then this shit. The whole friggin congress is out for themselves but the presidency because of the job identification is less influenced by money woes. Not to mention humans have a need for a legacy. Presidents are in the spotlight and less able to dodge
> the press. Clinton these days can not even hide his friggin affairs. Kennedy
> had a free pass, these days no president has.
> 
> While the press was initially after 9/11 a little bit in a cheerleading mode
> this has to do with the rally around the flag syndrom. But I can assure
> you that they are now quite critical of the President.
> 
> You should stop listening only to the smug European press. I lived in both places and they are not holier then the Americans.
> 
> PS: How old are you btw ?




I've also lived on both sides thank you...if they are so critical of the president then why was he re-elected? Knowing these things I wouldn't even think about voting for such a man. What do you mean by conspiracy bullshit? It's been proven, I don't see how you can dismiss this...(I'm talking about the links I posted,not necesarily the oil pipe lines, then again that can't really be proven can it...it's a matter of who you believe is saying the truth.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I disagree that our government is corrupt. I have read your links and found lots of allegations and assertions and accusations and no proof.



I didn't expect you to say "oh my God, I've seen the light", of course you're going to react this way, but then again you've been conditioned into believing everything your government says, after all you're american, why believe a foreigner.


----------



## j07950

Oh and we know Bush is incompetent, I was concentrating on corruption and money making schemes around wars...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I didn't expect you to say "oh my God, I've seen the light", of course you're going to react this way, but then again you've been conditioned into believing everything your government says, after all you're american, why believe a foreigner.


 Yes, why should I believe a foriegner? Especially when when many foriegners have publicly stated that their greatest wish is to see me and mine DEAD.

Yes my "conditioning" runs very deep! How wonderful it is to see that many Europeans (apparently yourself included) have not been conditioned to believe anything except that the United States is BAD and are more than willing to help us poor, brainwashed Americans see the light. How altruistic.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Oh and we know Bush is incompetent, I was concentrating on corruption and money making schemes around wars...



you gonna fill us in on how old you are and where you live?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Oh and we know Bush is incompetent, I was concentrating on corruption and money making schemes around wars...



I disagree that Bush is incompetent. Who is "we"?

Yes let's talk about the corruption and money making schemes around wars. Let's start with those European countries who were making money despite the UN sanctions or the oil for food scandal. How about we talk about European arms sales to despotic countries and known terrorist states? 

I bet a nickel to a donut your reply will be that the US is at fault.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Yes, why should I believe a foriegner? Especially when when many foriegners have publicly stated that their greatest wish is to see me and mine DEAD.
> 
> Yes my "conditioning" runs very deep! How wonderful it is to see that many Europeans (apparently yourself included) have not been conditioned to believe anything except that the United States is BAD and are more than willing to help us poor, brainwashed Americans see the light. How altruistic.



I love america, I lived 6 years in NJ. I'm not saying the US is bad, only the people running it. The foreigners whishing to see you dead aren't europeans in most cases, I don't know where you've gotten that. That's such bullshit. I make my opinion on what I read and learn at university, which for that matter is in the UK, supposedly your strongest ally, right? So no, I don't think I'm being conditioned. Especially since the links to what I posted earlier on where from american journalists, politicians etc... I guess I'm conditioned by your people then in believing the government in place is corrupt...how bizzare!!!


----------



## nosarcasm

frankly I doubt you ever left your island, Limey


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I disagree that Bush is incompetent. Who is "we"?
> 
> Yes let's talk about the corruption and money making schemes around wars. Let's start with those European countries who were making money despite the UN sanctions or the oil for food scandal. How about we talk about European arms sales to despotic countries and known terrorist states?
> 
> I bet a nickel to a donut your reply will be that the US is at fault.




I'm not out to blame everything on the US. Didn't I write earlier on that and I quote "Now obviously it can be said that politicians, and presidents are all in some way corrupt (Chirac for that matter is...) ". What you are saying is true, but in no way close to what the Bushes and co. have been up to. Oh by the way I'm 22 and living in Leeds, UK. But then again I don't see how thats important, you could have seen this information in my profile.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not out to blame everything on the US. Didn't I write earlier on that and I quote "Now obviously it can be said that politicians, and presidents are all in some way corrupt (Chirac for that matter is...) ". What you are saying is true, but in no way close to what the Bushes and co. have been up to. Oh by the way I'm 22 and living in Leeds, UK. But then again I don't see how thats important, you could have seen this information in my profile.


 Because it helps to understand who you are talking to to promote better communication however are not British are you?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I love america, I lived 6 years in NJ. I'm not saying the US is bad, only the people running it. The foreigners whishing to see you dead aren't europeans in most cases, I don't know where you've gotten that. That's such bullshit. I make my opinion on what I read and learn at university, which for that matter is in the UK, supposedly your strongest ally, right? So no, I don't think I'm being conditioned. Especially since the links to what I posted earlier on where from american journalists, politicians etc... I guess I'm conditioned by your people then in believing the government in place is corrupt...how bizzare!!!



 I didn't say that those foriegners wanting me dead were Europeans. We have already established that I reject the premise that the people running our country are "bad" so we have to agree to disagree there. 

Just because you attend a university in the UK does not mean you personally are from the UK. Also, many American journalists and politicians who spout this crap have their own axe to grind. I wonder just how great an effort you have made to read and understand opposing views? Do you have links to websites with content SUPPORTING American leaders and their policies or is your research on the US limit itself to those sites that bash the US? I am not saying that it is the case with you personally, but I find that many critical of the US and the US government make little effort to get a balanced view of things; they tend to find supporting arguments for their already formed opinions without trying to find opposing views or attain a balanced opinion.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Because it helps to understand who you are talking to to promote better communication however are not British are you?



No I'm not british, although I've lived a few years in and out of the UK, France and the US...I'm French but only on my passport, can't really say I identify myself to being french, just ben around too much for that. 
By the way I'm not out to get you but simply to make you understant what we Europeans feel. Don't think we're against you, you're not victims so don't act like it.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I didn't say that those foriegners wanting me dead were Europeans. We have already established that I reject the premise that the people running our country are "bad" so we have to agree to disagree there.
> 
> Just because you attend a university in the UK does not mean you personally are from the UK. Also, many American journalists and politicians who spout this crap have their own axe to grind. I wonder just how great an effort you have made to read and understand opposing views? Do you have links to websites with content SUPPORTING American leaders and their policies or is your research on the US limit itself to those sites that bash the US? I am not saying that it is the case with you personally, but I find that many critical of the US and the US government make little effort to get a balanced view of things; they tend to find supporting arguments for their already formed opinions without trying to find opposing views or attain a balanced opinion.



No I read everything I can whether it is for or against the US. I do politics and litterature at university and we study the good and the bad about US foreign politics. The anti-US-government thing is quiet new to us here in Europe, it started with BUSH jr...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not out to blame everything on the US. Didn't I write earlier on that and I quote "Now obviously it can be said that politicians, and presidents are all in some way corrupt (Chirac for that matter is...) ". What you are saying is true, but in no way close to what the Bushes and co. have been up to. Oh by the way I'm 22 and living in Leeds, UK. But then again I don't see how thats important, you could have seen this information in my profile.


 First I would like to point out that I did not ask for your individual details...someone else did.

Second, the degree of corruption you perceive in US leadership and a comparison to others is skewed (in my opinion). Your statement "...but in no way close to what the Bushes and co. have been up to..." reveals that your interest lies soley in bashing Bush and that you have no real interest in truth.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> No I'm not british, although I've lived a few years in and out of the UK, France and the US...I'm French but only on my passport, can't really say I identify myself to being french, just ben around too much for that.
> By the way I'm not out to get you but simply to make you understant what we Europeans feel. Don't think we're against you, you're not victims so don't act like it.


 tell that to the 3000 people killed in NY--and their families.


----------



## nosarcasm

j07950 said:
			
		

> By the way I'm not out to get you but simply to make you understant what we Europeans feel. Don't think we're against you, you're not victims so don't act like it.



I am an European and lived in Germany for 30 years. So since when do you speak for Europe. Because you certainly do not speak for me.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> No I read everything I can whether it is for or against the US. I do politics and litterature at university and we study the good and the bad about US foreign politics. The anti-US-government thing is quiet new to us here in Europe, it started with BUSH jr...



 Actually, there has been anti American sentiment in Europe since the end of WWII. Charles DeGaulle (sp?) was no great fan. Many parts of Eastern Europe and Germany have been somewhat anti American over the past decades as well.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> tell that to the 3000 people killed in NY--and their families.


 I'm not talking about that, of course you were victims of terrorist attacks...I'm saying don't feel like europeans hate america, they don't, only those who governs it. So when I read things such as "europeans hate us"; or "we might have to go to war aginst europe or france, and we'll go through it in a few days" I say stop looking out for people who don't like you, you're not victims, it's not your fault; only the people who are choosing for you are making bad choices.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Actually, there has been anti American sentiment in Europe since the end of WWII. Charles DeGaulle (sp?) was no great fan. Many parts of Eastern Europe and Germany have been somewhat anti American over the past decades as well.



Thats true but there is a difference between being anti-american and being against what the US government is doing. Even is it has existed for a long time it has never been as strong as today, and that's a shame. But it's in no way anti-american, get that straight. Americans are great. We just don't agree with the governments foreign policies. 
DeGaulle loved himself...a bit dodgy himself...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about that, of course you were victims of terrorist attacks...I'm saying don't feel like europeans hate america, they don't, only those who governs it. So when I read things such as "europeans hate us"; or "we might have to go to war aginst europe or france, and we'll go through it in a few days" I say stop looking out for people who don't like you, you're not victims, it's not your fault; only the people who are choosing for you are making bad choices.



There are probably million of Europeans who support Americans AND it's government. Americans CHOSE our leaders and support their choices so don't offend us by trying to make a separation between the 2. It's like saying you support the troops but not the leaders.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about that, of course you were victims of terrorist attacks...I'm saying don't feel like europeans hate america, they don't, only those who governs it. So when I read things such as "europeans hate us"; or "we might have to go to war aginst europe or france, and we'll go through it in a few days" I say stop looking out for people who don't like you, you're not victims, it's not your fault; only the people who are choosing for you are making bad choices.



 You forget one thing. The people making choices for us were ELECTED by the citizens of this country. 

I suspect that a great deal of the sentiment flowing out of Europe is driven by the fact that many of the choices our government makes are in direct opposition to the interests of many European countries. France and Germany, for example, had a great deal of economic interest in Iraq. 

If we stop looking out for people who dont like us, we could very well find ourselves with and event far worse than 9/11 on our hands. Remember that prior to 9/11, very few Americans were looking for the people who didn't like us. 9/11 made many Americans realize that there are those in the world who hate not only America, but everything it stands for. Nothing mobilizes the US citizenry like a sneak attack on the country; make no mistake, the terrorists actions of 9/11 were a sneak attack.


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> I am an European and lived in Germany for 30 years. So since when do you speak for Europe. Because you certainly do not speak for me.



I'm not speaking for europe...the whole thing is about why europeans are against america... Since you obviously aren't this doesn't involve you. I'm just explaining why european are so active in complaining about US foreign policies. I am one of those so I think I can speak on behalf of those people who do complain.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not speaking for europe...the whole thing is about why europeans are against america... Since you obviously aren't this doesn't involve you. I'm just explaining why european are so active in complaining about US foreign policies. I am one of those so I think I can speak on behalf of those people who do complain.


 Complain away---Americans were just shocked to see the lack of support form it's former allies when we were attacked. Then we learn that our former allies and the UN were complicit in propping up Saddam Hussein while the US was trying to keep him in check. Being stabbed in the back is NOT a thing Americans or anyone likes so we are responding in kind. We will get over it but we won't forget who is our friend and who are our new enemies.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> You forget one thing. The people making choices for us were ELECTED by the citizens of this country.
> 
> I suspect that a great deal of the sentiment flowing out of Europe is driven by the fact that many of the choices our government makes are in direct opposition to the interests of many European countries. France and Germany, for example, had a great deal of economic interest in Iraq.
> 
> If we stop looking out for people who dont like us, we could very well find ourselves with and event far worse than 9/11 on our hands. Remember that prior to 9/11, very few Americans were looking for the people who didn't like us. 9/11 made many Americans realize that there are those in the world who hate not only America, but everything it stands for. Nothing mobilizes the US citizenry like a sneak attack on the country; make no mistake, the terrorists actions of 9/11 were a sneak attack.



I'm not going to disagree with that. France and Germany,did have a great deal of economic interest in Iraq, so this might be one of the reasons why our governments were against war in Irak but not the only... Also people all over europe were against it, not just governments. How do you explain the millions who marched through the streets to protest against it. 
Maybee the people governing you were elected by the american people but what was the %? Winning with 51% doesn't mean that every american is behind the president. I don't see how thats possible. So maybee that being against the US foreign policies means that we are against 51% of the population but I can live with that. And being against it doesn't mean I want you dead. It only means I disagree.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> ... Since you obviously aren't this doesn't involve you. ...


Are you against hearing an opposing European point of view? The fact that you do not have the links to opposition views to your stance makes me believe that you have not tried to get a fair and balanced view of the US. Would you like some links to sites that support US leadership and US foriegn policy? I bet there are many on this board more than willing to provide such!


----------



## nosarcasm

no you can only speak for yourself. It is pretentious to speak for others.
Unless you are elected as a faction leader.

There is not one voice in Europe and the opposition against the war in Iraq is not based on one fact either. What you posted and your attitude reminds
me of a teen that watched Fahrenheit 911 and in school is fed the war
is always evil routine. 

There are reasons to oppose this war but for now you havent argued your
own points of views. 

Instead you generalized all Americans and all Europeans. You pretty much
went with the Fahrenheit plot and other conspiracy website bs about
Bush. 

Then you throw in some De Gaulle. I wrote a Reseach study about
German-French relations since 1870 and de Gaulle was a part of it. What do you really know about France and its politics?

Either way you want to make a case for the war against Iraq please
do that with your own reasoning first, then you can make your
case against the current US administration the US press (that in your
views works for the government by conditioning the poor idiots).

Then hand us your solution for Iraq, withdrawal?


----------



## CSM

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> no you can only speak for yourself. It is pretentious to speak for others.
> Unless you are elected as a faction leader.
> 
> There is not one voice in Europe and the opposition against the war in Iraq is not based on one fact either. What you posted and your attitude reminds
> me of a teen that watched Fahrenheit 911 and in school is fed the war
> is always evil routine.
> 
> There are reasons to oppose this war but for now you havent argued your
> own points of views.
> 
> Instead you generalized all Americans and all Europeans. You pretty much
> went with the Fahrenheit plot and other conspiracy website bs about
> Bush.
> 
> Then you throw in some De Gaulle. I wrote a Reseach study about
> German-French relations since 1870 and de Gaulle was a part of it. What do you really know about France and its politics?
> 
> Either way you want to make a case for the war against Iraq please
> do that with your own reasoning first, then you can make your
> case against the current US administration the US press (that in your
> views works for the government by conditioning the poor idiots).
> 
> Then hand us your solution for Iraq, withdrawal?


 To be fair sir, I am the one that brought up De Gaulle and not j07950.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Complain away---Americans were just shocked to see the lack of support form it's former allies when we were attacked. Then we learn that our former allies and the UN were complicit in propping up Saddam Hussein while the US was trying to keep him in check. Being stabbed in the back is NOT a thing Americans or anyone likes so we are responding in kind. We will get over it but we won't gorgrt who is our friend and who are our new enemies.



What do you mean lack of support when you were attacked?
In 2002, France allocated a budget of 33.7 M Euros for reconstruction in Afghanistan. It also helped in Afghanistan with it's army. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force received reinforcements of around 3,000 troops for the October 9 presidential election, about half of whom are still in country.Almost 8,400 soldiers are now deployed under the force's command in Afghanistan. 
So I don't know what you mean by lack of support. 
We didn't give you support for war in Irak and we all know why, and Irak was not connected to 9/11 so I don't know how not helping you in Irak has anything to do with a lack of support after you were attacked.


----------



## nosarcasm

CSM said:
			
		

> To be fair sir, I am the one that brought up De Gaulle and not j07950.



oops my bad


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> no you can only speak for yourself. It is pretentious to speak for others.
> Unless you are elected as a faction leader.
> 
> There is not one voice in Europe and the opposition against the war in Iraq is not based on one fact either. What you posted and your attitude reminds
> me of a teen that watched Fahrenheit 911 and in school is fed the war
> is always evil routine.
> 
> There are reasons to oppose this war but for now you havent argued your
> own points of views.
> 
> Instead you generalized all Americans and all Europeans. You pretty much
> went with the Fahrenheit plot and other conspiracy website bs about
> Bush.
> 
> Then you throw in some De Gaulle. I wrote a Reseach study about
> German-French relations since 1870 and de Gaulle was a part of it. What do you really know about France and its politics?
> 
> Either way you want to make a case for the war against Iraq please
> do that with your own reasoning first, then you can make your
> case against the current US administration the US press (that in your
> views works for the government by conditioning the poor idiots).
> 
> Then hand us your solution for Iraq, withdrawal?



Are you just being stupid? 
You may think I'm generalizing but I haven't just come up with this stuff. We have class discussion at university and what I'm saying here today is how people feel about the war and the US foreign policies.
I didn't even see Fahrenheit 911!!! 
Obviously  withdrawal is out of the question, it's much too late for that, it would bring more chaos...


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Are you against hearing an opposing European point of view? The fact that you do not have the links to opposition views to your stance makes me believe that you have not tried to get a fair and balanced view of the US. Would you like some links to sites that support US leadership and US foriegn policy? I bet there are many on this board more than willing to provide such!


I actually wouldn't mind those links if you've got them, but only if there is a mix of American and foreign point of views...thanks

By the way here is one: http://www.us-democratorship.com/


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Are you just being stupid?
> You may think I'm generalizing but I haven't just come up with this stuff. We have class discussion at university and what I'm saying here today is how people feel about the war and the US foreign policies.
> I didn't even see Fahrenheit 911!!!
> Obviously  withdrawal is out of the question, it's much too late for that, it would bring more chaos...



 Who (if anyone) presented the opposing view in your discussions? Was your view as presented here unanimous among the members of the discussion? 
The reason I ask this is because it has been my experience that such discussions tend to be very one sided (much like what you are seeing here on this board! I admire your persistence against the fusilade you are experiencing!) and very often such "discussions" are really some professor's platform for his/her ideological belief.


----------



## nosarcasm

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

This is one isolationist conservative perspective on the reasons
for the war in Iraq.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I actually wouldn't mind those links if you've got them, but only if there is a mix of American and foreign point of views...thanks
> 
> By the way here is one: http://www.us-democratorship.com/


 Your reply confirms my suspicion that you personally have not even tried to research a fair and balanced perspective or an objective point of view. I have to wonder how much conditioning you have unwittingly received?

I will collect up some links for you and I am sure many others will provide more. I have  ameeting here in the next few minutes so it wont be right away...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I actually wouldn't mind those links if you've got them, but only if there is a mix of American and foreign point of views...thanks
> 
> By the way here is one: http://www.us-democratorship.com/


 The site you link to here is very much anti Bush and not exactly what I meant by having an objective view...the first link referenced on this site is to Michael Moore....


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Your reply confirms my suspicion that you personally have not even tried to research a fair and balanced perspective or an objective point of view. I have to wonder how much conditioning you have unwittingly received?
> 
> I will collect up some links for you and I am sure many others will provide more. I have  ameeting here in the next few minutes so it wont be right away...



I previously said I have but if you think your links are better than go ahead, thats why I want them, just to see if I've missed something. As for our class discussions, it's "we" students who direct it, the teacher is only there to make us develop our ideas and thoughts, he is in no way influencing us as we have to do our own research first.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> The site you link to here is very much anti Bush and not exactly what I meant by having an objective view...the first link referenced on this site is to Michael Moore....



LOL...hadn't even seen the michael moore link, but then again I'm not really interested in what he says, he's too one-sided. Nevermind for that link. I really appreciate this conversation with you...


----------



## Mr. P

j07950 said:
			
		

> ... As for our class discussions, it's "we" students who direct it, the teacher is only there to make us develop our ideas and thoughts, he is in no way influencing us as we have to do our own research first.


Ever hear the phrase, "The blind leading the blind"?


----------



## j07950

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Ever hear the phrase, "The blind leading the blind"?


That's just a phrase...
Considering that my teacher is american then I guess he's changed sides. It's weird because he's as critic about some of their policies as he's quick to point out to all the great things they do.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL...hadn't even seen the michael moore link, but then again I'm not really interested in what he says, he's too one-sided. Nevermind for that link. I really appreciate this conversation with you...


 Here is a good place to start:

http://www.state.gov/


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Here is a good place to start:
> 
> http://www.state.gov/



Thanks I'll look through it, but that's kind of one sided isn't it, being the US departement of state website, they aren't likely to say some of their policies are wrong.
But I'll read on...


Oh by the way, what the US is doing in Southern Asia is great...see I can appreciate. Bringing Bush Sr. and clinton for united action was great I think.


----------



## CSM

Another:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thanks I'll look through it, but that's kind of one sided isn't it, being the US departement of state website, they aren't likely to say some of their policies are wrong.
> But I'll read on...


 The point is you get a look at a different perspective. Do not expect me to post links to anti US sites; I am sure you have plenty of those.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> The point is you get a look at a different perspective. Do not expect me to post links to anti US sites; I am sure you have plenty of those.


True I do...but I also watch CNN and fox news (although thats probably the most pro-governmental channel) so I get it from all sides and I talk to many american friends I have left. So I don't only get my information from anti-US sites.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> What do you mean lack of support when you were attacked?
> In 2002, France allocated a budget of 33.7 M Euros for reconstruction in Afghanistan. It also helped in Afghanistan with it's army. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force received reinforcements of around 3,000 troops for the October 9 presidential election, about half of whom are still in country.Almost 8,400 soldiers are now deployed under the force's command in Afghanistan.
> So I don't know what you mean by lack of support.
> We didn't give you support for war in Irak and we all know why, and Irak was not connected to 9/11 so I don't know how not helping you in Irak has anything to do with a lack of support after you were attacked.



Iraq was a regime that supports and promotes terrorism. We are not just fighting Al quaeda--the WOT is a war on ALL terrorists who would wish to do America and it's allies harm. What is it about this WOT that you don't understand ??? It is also being fought in the Phillipines, Pakistan, and other countries using differnet methods but you insist on making only an issue of Iraq. Why?----(while millions in Europe were protesting Iraq---millions were also staying home in silent support of the WOT)


----------



## CSM

This site has many many links to other sites...some are critical of Us policy and others are not.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Iraq was a regime that supports and promotes terrorism. We are not just fighting Al quaeda--the WOT is a war on ALL terrorists who would wish to do America and it's allies harm. What is it about this WOT that you don't understand ??? It is also being fought in the Phillipines, Pakistan, and other countries using differnet methods but you insist on making only an issue of Iraq. Why?----(while millions in Europe were protesting Iraq---millions were also staying home in silent support of the WOT)



True...but it was in no way capable in doing anything to the US. There are tons of other regimes that supports and promotes terrorism so why a weak Irak, are those other regimes going to come next in line??? 
I think millions protesting is enough, you wouldn't want the whole of europe out in the street protesting againt a war would you? Would that be suficient?


----------



## Mr. P

j07950 said:
			
		

> That's just a phrase...
> Considering that my teacher is american then I guess he's changed sides. It's weird because he's as critic about some of their policies as he's quick to point out to all the great things they do.


No, it's not just a phrase, it's a fact. Student lead/ conducted learning is a disaster.
As far as your teacher, I'd like to hear some of what he feels are "great things".


----------



## nosarcasm

Why did you protest against the War in Iraq again ?


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> Why did you protest against the War in Iraq again ?


I'm not going to repeat on and on...just read back.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> True...but it was in no way capable in doing anything to the US. There are tons of other regimes that supports and promotes terrorism so why a weak Irak, are those other regimes going to come next in line???
> I think millions protesting is enough, you wouldn't want the whole of europe out in the street protesting againt a war would you? Would that be suficient?


 Yes, those other regimes that support terrorism in any form are next in line...and they should be (in my opinion)  

Frankly, I could care less if the entire population of France took to the streets in protest...they lost my respect when I found that they had been supporting Saddam Hussein while not only ignoring UN sanctions but blocking US led efforts to enforce those sanctions. The fact that France is now negotiating with China to provide weapons to that regime doesn't give me any warm fuzzy feelings either.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> True...but it was in no way capable in doing anything to the US. There are tons of other regimes that supports and promotes terrorism so why a weak Irak, are those other regimes going to come next in line???
> I think millions protesting is enough, you wouldn't want the whole of europe out in the street protesting againt a war would you? Would that be suficient?


 
It's up to YOU to state why NOT iraq !!!!!----Other regimes have been pressured and YES--they may be next in line. ( avoid Syria in your travels)

Prove to me that the rest of the Europeans WANTED to protest but just stayed home instead .


----------



## j07950

Mr. P said:
			
		

> No, it's not just a phrase, it's a fact. Student lead/ conducted learning is a disaster.
> As far as your teacher, I'd like to hear some of what he feels are "great things".



Yeah like you'd know. Especially since it's not Student lead/ conducted learning it's class debate, what we learn outside of this is structured, and adresses certain topics and themes, we as students dont learn what we choose, how stupid to think this.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah like you'd know. Especially since it's not Student lead/ conducted learning it's class debate, what we learn outside of this is structured, and adresses certain topics and themes, we as students dont learn what we choose, how stupid to think this.


 "We as students dont learn what we choose..." !!!!!!!

No conditioning going there at all is there!


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Yes, those other regimes that support terrorism in any form are next in line...and they should be (in my opinion)
> 
> Frankly, I could care less if the entire population of France took to the streets in protest...they lost my respect when I found that they had been supporting Saddam Hussein while not only ignoring UN sanctions but blocking US led efforts to enforce those sanctions. The fact that France is now negotiating with China to provide weapons to that regime doesn't give me any warm fuzzy feelings either.


 It seems to me like you're up againt the world. The biggest problem is based on culture. To people in the middle east the US is probably regarded as a regime. You can't go around attacking countries just because you think they are a regimes. The US has suported rebel groups in different parts of the world who are now or have now turned their backs against the US. Are we likely to attack you because you supported terrorism in anyway...? No!
There are different degrees to threat and it seems to the rest of the world that the US is out to get whoever doesn't agree with it, or whoever doesn't comply to what you think a country should be. You can't dictate the strusture of countries throughout the world. You're going to be fighting wars for years on if this is really your policy.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> It seems to me like you're up againt the world. The biggest problem is based on culture. To people in the middle east the US is probably regarded as a regime. You can't go around attacking countries just because you think they are a regimes. The US has suported rebel groups in different parts of the world who are now or have now turned their backs against the US. Are we likely to attack you because you supported terrorism in anyway...? No!
> There are different degrees to threat and it seems to the rest of the world that the US is out to get whoever doesn't agree with it, or whoever doesn't comply to what you think a country should be. You can't dictate the strusture of countries throughout the world. You're going to be fighting wars for years on if this is really your policy.


 The US is "out to get" those who have openly attacked us and have vowed to continue killing us. You have a problem with that for some reason  why?


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> "We as students dont learn what we choose..." !!!!!!!
> 
> No conditioning going there at all is there!


 It's the same all over the world and you know it, if you went to university you didn't learn exactly what you wanted to. What you learn are all the basic things that is thought to people all over the world, whatever course you're doing. Of course it's conditioning, but the importance is looking elsewhere for informations and making your own point of view and not stopping at what you are thought. Plus I'm sure what we learn in politics here in the UK is not much different from what you guys learn at college in the US.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> The US is "out to get" those who have openly attacked us and have vowed to continue killing us. You have a problem with that for some reason  why?


 How has Irak openly attacked you?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> How has Irak openly attacked you?


 They invaded an ally and shot at our planes who were protecting the UN sanctions.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> They invaded an ally and shot at our planes who were protecting the UN sanctions.


You are refering to the gulf war I suspect?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You are refering to the gulf war I suspect?


 and the years that followed


----------



## j07950

j07950 said:
			
		

> You are refering to the gulf war I suspect?


 Right so they continued to invade Allies and shoot down US planes...I think I missed something...My TV probably wasn't working.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Right so they continued to invade Allies and shoot down US planes...I think I missed something...My TV probably wasn't working.



They DID continually shoot at US and British planes who were enforcing UN sanctions. You missed a lot I guess


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> It's the same all over the world and you know it, if you went to university you didn't learn exactly what you wanted to. What you learn are all the basic things that is thought to people all over the world, whatever course you're doing. Of course it's conditioning, but the importance is looking elsewhere for informations and making your own point of view and not stopping at what you are thought. Plus I'm sure what we learn in politics here in the UK is not much different from what you guys learn at college in the US.


 My point exactly. One has to make the effort to find an opposing point of view and review it OBJECTIVELY. It is not an easy thing to do. I have been to more than one college and personally seen MANY professors give poor grades to students with views in opposition to their own. I have seen first hand how people (especially young people) adhere to a certain stance simply because it has been stated by some public figure and made NO effort to find the truth.

International politics and diplomacy is a very complex arena. Too often, we try to categorize specific aspects of that arena without considering the many facets affecting a specific issue.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Right so they continued to invade Allies and shoot down US planes...I think I missed something...My TV probably wasn't working.


 Iraqi missile batteries fired on US planes enforcing the no fly zone almost daily.


----------



## nosarcasm

Saddam had murdered the Kurdish people in Iraq with chemical weapons.

After 9/11 proliferation of WMD's was one problem. The US assumed
he still had weapons or could easily produce some, and may give
them to AL Quaeda. 

So whats wrong with taking out Saddam Hussein ?


----------



## CSM

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> Saddam had murdered the Kurdish people in Iraq with chemical weapons.
> 
> After 9/11 proliferation of WMD's was one problem. The US assumed
> he still had weapons or could easily produce some, and may give
> them to AL Quaeda.
> 
> So whats wrong with taking out Saddam Hussein ?



 It wasn't just the US who believed he had WMDs. Many other governments filed intelligence data supporting that claim. There were many other issues involved as well that have somehow been conveniently ignored in the ongoing debate about US/Iraqi relations.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Iraqi missile batteries fired on US planes enforcing the no fly zone almost daily.



I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war? 
If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...


----------



## nosarcasm

weak argument, just because you cannot do it everywhere you
intervene nowhere. Come on.


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> Saddam had murdered the Kurdish people in Iraq with chemical weapons.
> 
> After 9/11 proliferation of WMD's was one problem. The US assumed
> he still had weapons or could easily produce some, and may give
> them to AL Quaeda.
> 
> So whats wrong with taking out Saddam Hussein ?



Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out? 
The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war?
> If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...


 
easy---look who was president then


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war?
> If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...


 Again, the situation is more complex than just the incidents that occured while trying to enforce the no fly zone.

Somalia was a poor state before the US entered. Your implication that the US caused the poverty in Somalia is either deliberately misleading or naive at best. Mr. Adid was given sanctuary by another nation and the US naively assumed he would be dealt with through diplomatic channels. 

I have to ask what makes you think the situation in Dafur is soley a US problem? Why hasn't Europe (with it's much vaunted morally superior foreign policy) taken the lead is resolving the problem?


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> It wasn't just the US who believed he had WMDs. Many other governments filed intelligence data supporting that claim. There were many other issues involved as well that have somehow been conveniently ignored in the ongoing debate about US/Iraqi relations.


That's true...but over the years and all the UN inspections no trace had ever been found, you can't just assume, in today's world you need proof. I would have been the happiest if you had found weapons, that way I would have been proven wrong, but that isn't the case. Too bad.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
> The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?




With Iraq we have the unique opportunity of surrounding a country that is close to internally becoming a democracy with Democratic Governments.  When Iraq votes in January, there will be three Democratically elected governments surrounding Iran, a likely nuclear power.  Internally the younger generation in Iran is working towards westernizing their culture, if we are successful regardless of being undermined by the UN and our "allies" we will be able to begin supporting those who look to creating a Democratic Iran.  This will make it so we can avoid another costly war.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> That's true...but over the years and all the UN inspections no trace had ever been found, you can't just assume, in today's world you need proof. I would have been the happiest if you had found weapons, that way I would have been proven wrong, but that isn't the case. Too bad.



Why were members of the security council selling Saddam weapons and circumventing sanctions ?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
> The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?


An old debate that has been gone through many times on this board. Synoptically, Saddam had shown that he was more than willing to use those WMDs (even against citizens of his own country) while no other nation since WWII has done so.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Again, the situation is more complex than just the incidents that occured while trying to enforce the no fly zone.
> 
> Somalia was a poor state before the US entered. Your implication that the US caused the poverty in Somalia is either deliberately misleading or naive at best. Mr. Adid was given sanctuary by another nation and the US naively assumed he would be dealt with through diplomatic channels.
> 
> I have to ask what makes you think the situation in Dafur is soley a US problem? Why hasn't Europe (with it's much vaunted morally superior foreign policy) taken the lead is resolving the problem?



I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done. 
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.


----------



## nosarcasm

j07950 said:
			
		

> Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
> The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?



They should have done it earlier but during the cold war it was considered
too risky, not to mention the containment strategy of Iran, the country that had taken US hostages.

Saddam is still guilty of the murder of these Kurds.

Why now, because after 9/11 the public was willing to support war efforts.
Other countries that are part of the so called Axis of Evil are considerable
stronger then Iraq. Attacking North Korea would be too costly not only
for the US but also for South Korea. 

Read the link I put up earlier. You still lack a valid argument why getting
rid of Saddam is wrong.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
> I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.




It's up to the UN?  That means that the UN sends troops, whose troops will they be?  Which nations would be the ones that the UN can "send" anywhere?  This is one reason they are so ineffectual, they simply cannot do anything to enforce their decisions other than hope the US will back them up.


----------



## Mr. P

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah like you'd know. Especially since it's not Student lead/ conducted learning it's class debate, what we learn outside of this is structured, and adresses certain topics and themes, we as students dont learn what we choose, how stupid to think this.



I only know what you've posted...


			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> ... As for our class discussions, it's "we" students who direct it, the teacher is only there to make us develop our ideas and thoughts, he is in no way influencing us as we have to do our own research first.


So like I said, it's not just a phrase.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> With Iraq we have the unique opportunity of surrounding a country that is close to internally becoming a democracy with Democratic Governments.  When Iraq votes in January, there will be three Democratically elected governments surrounding Iran, a likely nuclear power.  Internally the younger generation in Iran is working towards westernizing their culture, if we are successful regardless of being undermined by the UN and our "allies" we will be able to begin supporting those who look to creating a Democratic Iran.  This will make it so we can avoid another costly war.



This end result would be ideal, I'd love to see that happen and I'll pray for it to happen.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> This end result would be ideal, I'd love to see that happen and I'll pray for it to happen.




As will I.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why were members of the security council selling Saddam weapons and circumventing sanctions ?



You've got a point!!!

"The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
http://www.sundayherald.com/31710


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> It's up to the UN?  That means that the UN sends troops, whose troops will they be?  Which nations would be the ones that the UN can "send" anywhere?  This is one reason they are so ineffectual, they simply cannot do anything to enforce their decisions other than hope the US will back them up.



I agree that the UN is weak but no one is making a move foward to do something about it so it's up to the UN...France would send troops if needed, as would other nations I'm sure. We have troops all over the world under UN authority so the UN has to make a descision.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You've got a point!!!
> 
> "The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.
> 
> The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
> http://www.sundayherald.com/31710


 WHich should provide you with all the evidence you need to understand that the UN sanctions had NO CHANCE of keeping Saddam in check. He was only getting stronger and becoming more of a threat to the US and the entire area !!!


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> WHich should provide you with all the evidence you need to understand that the UN sanctions had NO CHANCE of keeping Saddam in check. He was only getting stronger and becoming more of a threat to the US and the entire area !!!


That's right but where are the weapons? New York and LA have more illegal weapons circulating than in Irak. (That's only being sarcastic but still)


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> You've got a point!!!
> 
> "The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.
> 
> The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
> http://www.sundayherald.com/31710


 It is all in how you present it, isn't it. Crafty, but you could have posted this from the article as well:

Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991.

The article also does not mention the fact that France and Germany were supplying arms to Iraq even after the first Gulf War....


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> It is all in how you present it, isn't it. Crafty, but you could have posted this from the article as well:
> 
> Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991.
> 
> The article also does not mention the fact that France and Germany were supplying arms to Iraq even after the first Gulf War....


 Was I implying otherwise?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I agree that the UN is weak but no one is making a move foward to do something about it ...


So I ask again, where are the European nations and their leadership? why aren't THEY stepping up to the plate?


----------



## nosarcasm

we stepped up in 39. Wasnt welcomed :crutch:


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Was I implying otherwise?


 I  do believe you were implying otherwise.  The paragraph you chose to quote was an attempt to show that the US was implicit....I suspect you thought that none here would actually go read the article.

 If I am wrong, I apologize, but the tactic displayed here is very common and you would not be the first to try it.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> So I ask again, where are the European nations and their leadership? why aren't THEY stepping up to the plate?



Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should. 
But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> That's right but where are the weapons? New York and LA have more illegal weapons circulating than in Irak. (That's only being sarcastic but still)




you're sinking into the liberal quagmire of lies and resorting to sacasm ???

learn something---you are a waste off effort


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I  do believe you were implying otherwise.  The paragraph you chose to quote was an attempt to show that the US was implicit....I suspect you thought that none here would actually go read the article.
> 
> If I am wrong, I apologize, but the tactic displayed here is very common and you would not be the first to try it.



I wasn't, otherwise I would have just pasted:
The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."

 and not named other european nations. I know France and Germany have a lot of faults in this, I'm not backing away from that. Honnestly


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should.
> But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...


 
Now isn't that convenient! Europe can absolve itself of responsibility because the UN has not decided to take action, yet the US is somehow resposnible because it wont take action. 

Maybe the US has learned its lesson and is waiting for UN and European leadership regarding Dafur?


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Now isn't that convenient! Europe can absolve itself of responsibility because the UN has not decided to take action, yet the US is somehow resposnible because it wont take action.
> 
> Maybe the US has learned its lesson and is waiting for UN and European leadership regarding Dafur?



LOL
I never said the US is responsible for not taking action, if you read correctly I said everyone is at fault, europe as well... Read what I actually write.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL
> I never said the US is responsible for not taking action, if you read correctly I said everyone is at fault, europe as well... Read what I actually write.


 here is what you stated:

If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

I don't see anywhere in this statement where you mention any other nation except the US.  Perhaps you were thinking it, but this American cannot read minds across the internet.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> here is what you stated:
> 
> If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...
> 
> I don't see anywhere in this statement where you mention any other nation except the US.  Perhaps you were thinking it, but this American cannot read minds across the internet.



Did I not write: I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done. 
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.

I didn't want to imply US were at fault for Darfur, it's an example of countries where things need to be done, where things should have been done, before Irak for example


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Did I not write: I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
> I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.
> 
> I didn't want to imply US were at fault for Darfur, it's an example of countries where things need to be done, where things should have been done, before Irak for example


  Why---so all the arms suppliers could get rich?


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why---so all the arms suppliers could get rich?


Whether they get rich in Irak or another country they will still get rich no matter what, that's not the important issue here.
I think people dying is more important than arm suppliers getting richer


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Whether they get rich in Irak or another country they will still get rich no matter what, that's not the important issue here.
> I think people dying is more important than arm suppliers getting richer


 On this point we can agree. 

I take it from your last few postings then that you feel the UN is ineffective since they have not taken matters on Dafur, Somalia, etc under consideration nor asked for action regarding these countries?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should.
> But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...




No, that came down to going without French and Russian approval.  Amazingly they were taking bribes from Saddam while they voted for and against it (by threatening drastic measures but never saying what they may be).  With allies like those we don't need enemies.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> On this point we can agree.
> 
> I take it from your last few postings then that you feel the UN is ineffective since they have not taken matters on Dafur, Somalia, etc under consideration nor asked for action regarding these countries?


 Totally...It's up to the UN or else up to all the important nations to decide for united action in Darfur...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Totally...It's up to the UN or else up to all the important nations to decide for united action in Darfur...


 Good ... another point we can agree on. The UN is ineffective. 

Why, then, should the US (or any other nation, for that matter) even consider the UN as fulfillng a global leadership role?


----------



## freeandfun1

All this UN shit is bunk.  When the UN does send troops, who ends up going?  The majority of the troops and equipment ends up being American and we end up paying the bulk of the tab.  So why the fuck do we need the UN?  We don't need them, they need US.  I am so sick of hearing "the UN didn't authorize.... blah, blah, blah....."  So the US' military should be beholden to the UN?  I think not.


----------



## CSM

We have agreed on two points so far:

1) people dying is more important an issue than which corporation gets rich

and 

2) The Un is ineffective in dealing with the issues of people dying (specifically inside soveriegn nations such as Dafur)


----------



## Merlin1047

Oh goodie.  Another Euroweenie on the premises.

I do love their constant call for unanimity, UN approval and united actions.  If you read between the lines you'll discover that all this is nothing more than bullshit.  Euroweenies don't want to do anything about terrorism or genocide.  They're afraid that diverting government funds into other areas might cut down their socialist benefits.  Also they're afraid that their armed forces will be revealed as ineffective and inadequate.  So their only contribution to the effort is to bitch whenever we do something without their "permission".

The call for working through the UN or getting approval and cooperation from the EU is simply code for doing nothing.  After all, doing nothing, making excuses, ignoring mass murder, kissing the asses of dictators and bitching about Americans are the only things that Euroweenies are really very good at.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> No, that came down to going without French and Russian approval.  Amazingly they were taking bribes from Saddam while they voted for and against it (by threatening drastic measures but never saying what they may be).  With allies like those we don't need enemies.



Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...


 Little money???? I would not consider billions of dollars "little money". Maybe it is a paltry sum for you wealthy Europeans, though.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...




Diplomacy does not mean undermining the UN's Oil for Food program for personal riches of the diplomat.  (That is where the bribes were).  Thus undermining the very organization you are attempting to support with this thread.  Taking the money then voting against it made it clear that France and Russia were willing to directly go against the UN sanctions simply to undermine the US.  In order to create a "counterbalance".  As I said before, there is no need for enemies when we have "allies" like those.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Little money???? I would not consider billions of dollars "little money". Maybe it is a paltry sum for you wealthy Europeans, though.


Get me a link for this I'm interested...
As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Get me a link for this I'm interested...
> As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.




We cannot allow the UN to set our foreign policy.  Simply they are not part of the US government and only the US government can set the foreign policy of the US.  We already know the UN is corrupt and will not even attempt to correct it as the corruption goes all the way to the top (Kofi Anan's son was one of the worst offenders in the Oil for Food scandal.)  Not only that but many countries such as France are working directly against the US.  Why would we want to have them set policy for us.  We cannot be a sovereign nation and beg permission at the same time.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Get me a link for this I'm interested...
> As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.


 

I disagree! The UN is *NOT* in charge of world order in any way shape or form!
No sovereign nation has subverted it's authority or responsibility to the UN, nor should they. The US, just like any other nation, is responsible for it's own security; it has the right to make treaties as it sees fit, engage in global trade as it see fit, and yes, even wage war as it sees fit. As for dissing the rest of the world...the rest of the world has little or no trouble dissing the US! In some cases, the US does deserve criticism, but then what nation does not? The rest of the world does not have US interests at heart, and, in fact, in many cases, desires to subvert US interests to achieve their own ends.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> We cannot allow the UN to set our foreign policy.  Simply they are not part of the US government and only the US government can set the foreign policy of the US.  We already know the UN is corrupt and will not even attempt to correct it as the corruption goes all the way to the top (Kofi Anan's son was one of the worst offenders in the Oil for Food scandal.)  Not only that but many countries such as France are working directly against the US.  Why would we want to have them set policy for us.  We cannot be a sovereign nation and beg permission at the same time.


The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Get me a link for this I'm interested...
> As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.


 HERE IS A START:

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217


February 28, 2003 - Updated, April 1, 2003 |  |  



France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraqs imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] 
In 2001 France became Iraqs largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3] 
Frances largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the countrys oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion. 
Frances Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraqs telephone system.[5] 
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6] 
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons. 
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and 80s.[8] 
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraqs arms imports.[9]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> We are not telling you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.




Um, yes you are.  You attempt to tell me that we should ask permission before working for our own security.  



> "you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus"



You cannot go around telling a sovereign nation how to conduct matters of its own security.  We listened to advice and chose our own course.  You get upset because we do not subject ourselves to the rule of a foreign power, the UN.  One which France attempts to use as a controlling factor over the US, brandishing it as if that was not specifically making one subject to another power.  Foreign policy is one way that countries have sovereignty, they make treaties, conduct trade, and make war all for their own benefit.

This consensus is not something any sovereign nation should concede to when working for the security of its own borders and citizens.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.



 Again, I disagree. Legitimate international consensus  (as you call it) is not nor has ever been a requirement for any nation engaging in international affairs. Treaties between countries do not need the blessing of the UN or any country not participating in said treaties.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country,


They try.


> that is what sovereignty is..


Sovereignty?  The u.n. doesn't believe in sovereignty.  They believe the era of nation states it's just a phase to be moved through on the road to global communism.  They will tell you so when they think you're one of them.


> .but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus;


Sure you can.  watch us.


> even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.



The u.n. makes no distinction between  countries with freedom and civil rights and those under strict dictatorship.  That's why it's failed.  It has no MORAL compass.


----------



## no1tovote4

> even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.



Impossible, the corruption goes throughout all levels of the organization.  When Kofi Annan is allowed to block investigations into something his son was hired to lead in order to attempt to protect himself and his son it is clear that there is no more hope for this sad organization to ever become the solid world leadership that they wish to be.  We cannot trust them, and if we give them any money we should expect it to be embezzled and lost by an inept, corrupt, and ineffectual organization.  I would not donate a dime through any UN organization now that I have seen what they do with the money.

If you want to attempt to fix it you would have to begin from the ground up.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Um, yes you are.  You attempt to tell me that we should ask permission before working for our own security.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot go around telling a sovereign nation how to conduct matters of its own security.  We listened to advice and chose our own course.  You get upset because we do not subject ourselves to the rule of a foreign power, the UN.  One which France attempts to use as a controlling factor over the US, brandishing it as if that was not specifically making one subject to another power.  Foreign policy is one way that countries have sovereignty, they make treaties, conduct trade, and make war all for their own benefit.
> 
> This consensus is not something any sovereign nation should concede to when working for the security of its own borders and citizens.


Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Impossible, the corruption goes throughout all levels of the organization.  When Kofi Anan is allowed to block investigations into something his son was hired to lead in order to attempt to protect himself and his son it is clear that there is no more hope for this sad organization to ever become the solid world leadership that they wish to be.  We cannot trust them, and if we give them any money we should expect it to be embezzled and lost by an inept, corrupt, and ineffectual organization.  I would not donate a dime through any UN organization now that I have seen what they do with the money.
> 
> If you want to attempt to fix it you would have to begin from the ground up.



I agree, that's why maybee everyone should be fired at the UN and restarted. Everything is corrupt these days, it's such a shame really.


----------



## j07950

Got to go but I'll be back soon, I enjoy these debates, I'm learning a lot. Hope you are too in wome way or another.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.




As I said before, it is the region that is the threat not specifically Iraq.  By working to surround the strongest of those countries that is not Democratic with Democratically elected governments we strengthen our ability to deal with Iran without creating a much larger and more costly war.  It is an attempt to deal with the strongest nation by other means than war.

Iraq paid for suicide bombers to blow up our allies in Isreal, Iraq gave money to Hamas.  This is a nation that supported international terrorism and is a legitimate target in a War on Terror, regardless of how much you want them not to be so long as they give money to terrorists they are a threat to the US and her allies.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.



 IN YOUR OPINION Iraq was not a threat to the US. Obviously, US leadership thought otherwise. I am glad the US leadership chose not to entrust our national security to what you have already agreed was an ineffective institution.

The way we go about things are a shame, IN YOUR OPINION. I am not shamed by it at all.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Got to go but I'll be back soon, I enjoy these debates, I'm learning a lot. Hope you are too in wome way or another.




Oh, I am.  I enjoy this as well.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Everything is corrupt these days, it's such a shame really.



Yes.  This fact makes the left wing tendency toward building larger and more authoritarian hierarchies especially stupid.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Got to go but I'll be back soon, I enjoy these debates, I'm learning a lot. Hope you are too in wome way or another.


 Unfortunately, your argument and point of view has been aired here many times. I will grant you that you are doing well by not resorting to name calling and seem to be really trying to debate and niot just bash at the US. Many have tread the path you are on right now...none have been around very long.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.



If Iraq was a "world" issue, why was the "world" relying on the US and GB to keep him contained while the "world" was profiting from doing business with him?

We did go to the UN and the UN would not enforce their own resolutions, so we did.  Even if they had decided to enforce them, they would have turned to us anyway.  Again, it was the UN's responsibility to contain Saddam, but we ended up doing the work.

You obviously have NO clue.


----------



## CSM

Interestingly enough, the French have ignored and even violated UN resolutions in the past. For example, France had no problems with ignoring UN resolutions during its testing of nuclear weapons in the mid 90's and indeed exploded a nuclear device on the heels of a UN resolution banning such tests. Guess who was the French president at the time?


----------



## no1tovote4

CSM said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, the French have ignored and even violated UN resolutions in the past. For example, France had no problems with ignoring UN resolutions during its testing of nuclear weapons in the mid 90's and indeed exploded a nuclear device on the heels of a UN resolution banning such tests. Guess who was the French president at the time?




Um....  John Kerry?


----------



## CSM

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Um....  John Kerry?


 Close...it was Chirac...not that anyone can tell him apart from Kerry anyway.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, the French have ignored and even violated UN resolutions in the past. For example, France had no problems with ignoring UN resolutions during its testing of nuclear weapons in the mid 90's and indeed exploded a nuclear device on the heels of a UN resolution banning such tests. Guess who was the French president at the time?


That was wrong but maybee that's because we can't test in our own country like the US...At least we're not putting our own people at risk like the US has done, don't go into the nuclear debate, your going to lose this one...
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
Plus I've got other things to do than argue tonight. And you're likely to gang up on me no matter if what I'm saying is true or not. If I'm not an American than I'm likely to be wrong.
Anyway I'll come back later...but do have a chat about this and come up with interesting facts for me to read. Very interested as I don't know all that much about it.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> That was wrong but maybee that's because we can't test in our own country like the US...At least we're not putting our own people at risk like the US has done, don't go into the nuclear debate, your going to lose this one...
> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/
> Plus I've got other things to do than argue tonight. And you're likely to gang up on me no matter if what I'm saying is true or not. If I'm not an American than I'm likely to be wrong.
> Anyway I'll come back later...but do have a chat about this and come up with interesting facts for me to read. Very interested as I don't know all that much about it.


 so you just put other parts of the world at risk??--what happened with all this be nice to the whole world stuff you were spouting?


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> so you just put other parts of the world at risk??--what happened with all this be nice to the whole world stuff you were spouting?




Where does/did the UK test their weapons anyway?


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Where does/did the UK test their weapons anyway?


http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/mururoa.htm
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mar90danielsson


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/mururoa.htm




Our friend is from the UK though.  Do they test in the same place?


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Our friend is from the UK though.  Do they test in the same place?


 has a french passport and is going to school un the UK--- he won't claim a nationality


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> has a french passport and is going to school un the UK--- he won't claim a nationality




He types in US English rather well.  Haven't seen the regular UK spelling yet.  I think our friend just may be Canadian.


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> He types in US English rather well.  Haven't seen the regular UK spelling yet.  I think our friend just may be Canadian.



Lived in Jersey for 6 years I think he said so there's no telling and he sure doesn't want to share.


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Lived in Jersey for 6 years I think he said so there's no telling and he sure doesn't want to share.



Now it is even more likely it is a HS child of a military man or just some regular run of the mill US Democrat pulling our chains.


----------



## j07950

Nope...I'm really French, lived in the US 6 years, not the son of a military, and yes I study in the UK...anything else?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Nope...I'm really French, lived in the US 6 years, not the son of a military, and yes I study in the UK...anything else?




Good.  At least we know where you sit before we start into where you stand.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Good.  At least we know where you sit before we start into where you stand.


I don't really sit anywhere that's the thing, you can say all you want about France I'm not bothered, as long as it's true.


----------



## Mr. P

j07950 said:
			
		

> Nope...I'm really French, lived in the US 6 years, not the son of a military, and yes I study in the UK...anything else?


Yeah, ...*SNIFF*


----------



## j07950

My points have gone up "reputation wise"...how come? I thought I'd stay in the red zone forever... LOL


----------



## Said1

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> He types in US English rather well.  Haven't seen the regular UK spelling yet.  I think our friend just may be Canadian.



Hey, watch it!  :cof:


----------



## Mr. P

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Ok Mr.P, haven't been around lately but I at least pick up the clues!


----------



## Mr. P

j07950 said:
			
		

> My points have gone up "reputation wise"...how come? I thought I'd stay in the red zone forever... LOL


Why would you think that?


----------



## padisha emperor

First, excuse me if I say something already said by somebody, but this reading was long, so....


Second, j07950, be courageous, because I try to explain same things than you on this board (about Iraq, about UNO......) since several monthes. 
But you speak really well english, so I hope it would help you to explain these things...  

Now.....


-Said1, your magazine's cover was really funny....when will you stop these childern's games ?
I believe that this picture was taken in Kosovo, you know, a place with a war, some years ago, and now, with french soldiers, and soon Euro-force, and without - or really not a lot - US soldiers.

Dillo : 
you answered to j07950, when he asked you  about what were the direct attacks from iraq against USA.
You said that Iraq shot on US aircrafts. And that didn't respect UN.
Funny, no ?
Did USA respect the UN ?
Becuase people can imagine, when they read your message, that US atack Iraq because it destoy US planes during mission for UN, so, UN was not respected, so, Iraq have to be punished....
If i continue in ths way, USA will be punished. why ?

After all, they did nothnig, right ?  except : 

- non-respect of the UN decision.
- attack and war action against a sovereign State, which is hurting the Westphalia Treaty about the non-ingerence and the sovereignity, and above all ALL the rules of the international conventions and laws.

the second point is the most disturbing : it is really a hard violation of the laws....


For the nuclear attempts : thank you, it open a way : 
the decision to make new nuclear experiences is in a special category of acts : not the act from the government, but the act of the government. And these acts cannot be controled by the juridictions. (Conseil d'Etat). Why ? because it is a decision concerning France, and french policy (and it was done in french territories in Pacific).
Then, it only concern France, so, I will give to you your own argue : why would we let other countries lead our policy ? 
You refuse everything when we give advice, and even sometimes opinions, about the US policies. So, after, don't make critics about other countries policy.


----------



## manu1959

exclent points all ..... i have three questions for you:



			
				padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Kosovo, you know, a place with a war, some years ago, and now, with french soldiers, and soon Euro-force, and without - or really not a lot - US soldiers.



tell me who was the comander of UN forces in kosovo and how many US troops were there vs french?



			
				padisha emperor said:
			
		

> for UN, so, UN was not respected, so, Iraq have to be punished....
> If i continue in ths way, USA will be punished. why ?
> After all, they did nothnig, right ?  except :
> - non-respect of the UN decision.
> - attack and war action against a sovereign State, which is hurting the Westphalia Treaty about the non-ingerence and the sovereignity, and above all ALL the rules of the international conventions and laws.



tell me which UN resolution did the united states disobey?



			
				padisha emperor said:
			
		

> the second point is the most disturbing : it is really a hard violation of the laws....
> For the nuclear attempts : thank you, it open a way :
> the decision to make new nuclear experiences is in a special category of acts : not the act from the government, but the act of the government. And these acts cannot be controled by the juridictions. (Conseil d'Etat). Why ? because it is a decision concerning France, and french policy (and it was done in french territories in Pacific).
> Then, it only concern France, so, I will give to you your own argue : why would we let other countries lead our policy ?
> You refuse everything when we give advice, and even sometimes opinions, about the US policies. So, after, don't make critics about other countries policy.



is france a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and nuclear testing ban?

thanks for your help,

59


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> -Said1, your magazine's cover was really funny....when will you stop these childern's games ?



Never. It's my youthful disposition which is so endearing to others.  



> I believe that this picture was taken in Kosovo, you know, a place with a war, some years ago, and now, with french soldiers, and soon Euro-force, and without - or really not a lot - US soldiers.



Like who cares, it was still pretty darn funny. And the picture was not making fun of Euro-forces, just French, you know.  :tng: 

And when will you stop posting rediculous comments (rediculous: as in deserving ridecule), which are clearly figments of some wacky french history profs imagination.


----------



## padisha emperor

first question : 
I speak of the soldiers who are NOW.
it is written, between the "and", and "with french soldiers"......


second question : 
They refused to follow the UN decision : the UN refused to allow the uS for a war in Iraq. It was against the vote of the UN security coucil and the UN general assembly.

But, more important : the invasion of a sovereign country is a violation of the international laws ! you see the UN point, but be sure that this one is probably more important ! UN respect the international laws, so , US didn't foloow UNO 's decision and didn't respect the international rules.

it is maybe not exactly an UN resolution....sorry..........it is only the main rule of international laws............


third : I believe.
you've got the point.

Question for you now : is USA a signatory to the San Fransisco treaty, about the UNO organization and missions ?
Is the peace a mission of UNO ?
Is there no international rules about the non-ingerence ?

thank for your help.


----------



## padisha emperor

Said1, I trust more in the french scholar system than in the US, for the knowledges.
because a systel where in some States, the natural sciences are not teached because it hurts the Bible.....
Do you think that dinosaurs came from french teacher's imagination ?

try to go to a library, take an history book, open it, read it, and then you'll see that I'm not saying lies.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Said1, I trust more in the french scholar system than in the US, for the knowledges.
> because a systel where in some States, the natural sciences are not teached because it hurts the Bible.....
> Do you think that dinosaurs came from french teacher's imagination ?
> 
> try to go to a library, take an history book, open it, read it, and then you'll see that I'm not saying lies.




I'm not American my dear, I'm Canadian. What do dinosaurs have to do with France?


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm not American my dear, I'm Canadian. What do dinosaurs have to do with France?


 They run the government


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Padesha.  The U.N. is a corrupt, pointless organization at this point.  It exists only for the pleasure of Euroliberals to attempt to shift world power through lies.


----------



## padisha emperor

anyway,  said1...not important.....  


the UN was an idea of USA, no ?

What your prooves about the UN corruption ,

It is a weak organization, yes. but for several reasons : 
 - the Un is victim of it success : too many countries are in, so the money doesn't follow....
 - after the decolonisation, a lot of countries go in the UNO, but they were very poor.
 - the UN, because lot of it members are poor, hasd now  a big mission of economy, more important than the politic one.
 - UNO spend lot of money to help countries, but have not enough moeny : one example : the USA pay 22% of the UN contribution. And they stop to pay during one moment, and at this time they paid 33%. The money problem of UNO has one of it reason here.
Not the only one, of course.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> anyway,  said1...not important.....
> 
> 
> the UN was an idea of USA, no ?
> 
> What your prooves about the UN corruption ,
> 
> It is a weak organization, yes. but for several reasons :
> - the Un is victim of it success : too many countries are in, so the money doesn't follow....
> - after the decolonisation, a lot of countries go in the UNO, but they were very poor.
> - the UN, because lot of it members are poor, hasd now  a big mission of economy, more important than the politic one.
> - UNO spend lot of money to help countries, but have not enough moeny : one example : the USA pay 22% of the UN contribution. And they stop to pay during one moment, and at this time they paid 33%. The money problem of UNO has one of it reason here.
> Not the only one, of course.



Corruption will be proven if Annan ever decides to cooperate with the invetigators---the UN has NO WAY of enforcing anything


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> anyway,  said1...not important.....
> 
> 
> the UN was an idea of USA, no ?
> 
> What your prooves about the UN corruption ,
> 
> It is a weak organization, yes. but for several reasons :
> - the Un is victim of it success : too many countries are in, so the money doesn't follow....
> - after the decolonisation, a lot of countries go in the UNO, but they were very poor.
> - the UN, because lot of it members are poor, hasd now  a big mission of economy, more important than the politic one.
> - UNO spend lot of money to help countries, but have not enough moeny : one example : the USA pay 22% of the UN contribution. And they stop to pay during one moment, and at this time they paid 33%. The money problem of UNO has one of it reason here.
> Not the only one, of course.



 With over 200 member nations, why is the US paying as much as they do? It must be all those American corporations making money off the place! Now where in the UN charter does it state anything about redistributing the worlds wealth.

The UN has become the modern Tower of Babel.


----------



## no1tovote4

Said1 said:
			
		

> Hey, watch it!  :cof:




Don't take it personally Said.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Said1, I trust more in the french scholar system than in the US, for the knowledges.
> because a systel where in some States, the natural sciences are not teached because it hurts the Bible.....
> Do you think that dinosaurs came from french teacher's imagination ?
> 
> try to go to a library, take an history book, open it, read it, and then you'll see that I'm not saying lies.




I would like to see some evidence PE, I have never heard of a place where the Natural Sciences cannot be taught.  There are one or two where they are trying to INCLUDE creationism as a theory in science, but not even one where they are trying to REMOVE the natural sciences.


----------



## Said1

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Don't take it personally Said.




S'aight, considering the source.


----------



## j07950

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> France is a military midget in comparison to the US. Both countries are democracies and own nuclear weapons and an advanced delivery systems.
> 
> The European as a whole (far from being one) has limited military assets in comparison to the US and a fanatic peace-nick population. The resistance against the war in Iraq stems alot from public opinion that tries to avoid
> wars at all costs these days.
> 
> If the Europeans do not start a war then the US would have to. This seems
> unlikely to me. Not only have US companies vital interest in Europe also
> the difference in common values is not that huge.
> 
> Does any European country wants to fight a war for France or anyone else
> I dont see that as a possibilty.
> 
> Do they want to be a more even partner in the relationship with the US. Sure
> Will that create posturing over what is fair trade? No doubt. But with
> so many multinationals that are invested on both sides of the Atlantic
> I do not see a threat in that.
> 
> A lot of people predicted WW 2 before the treaty of Versailles was even signed. The outside enemy in form of the USSR helped create the NATO
> and soon China will probably fill the position as the next challenger.
> 
> The main difference these days imo is that with the international press and
> the ability of most Europeans to read and write in English the differences
> between countries have become smaller. The interdependence that countries
> have these days and the similar interest the EU and US have (pretty much to keep the status quo)
> 
> 
> Not to mention people like me that would like to promote a closer cooperation
> between the EU and the US. The enemies of today or the future are not France or Russia You might be pissed about the French grandeur and their try
> to piss on the US leg but it is harmless. De Gaulle had an anti American stand in order to gain something for France. But their influence is declining and the posturing is basically harmless.
> 
> The future cultural threat is not socialism in Europe because imo the EU at the end is more about capitalism then a huge socialist state. The cultural divisions in the EU will not go away within the next 50 years.
> 
> But challengers like China are more likely to create problems for the US.
> The Jiadist target Christianity as a whole in a clash of civilizations.
> 
> To keep the status quo of western dominance in global fiance and trade
> I expect the EU and US to work together to secure there part of the pie.
> 
> I spoke out against the post because it implied the EU tries activly to
> bring the US down. I doubt that would help their security interest nor
> that they intend to do that.
> 
> The EU itself repeatedly stated that they want a stronger dollar. It hurts
> their exports to the US when their products are now more expensive.
> 
> Again I assume both sides have an interest in a status quo in the financial
> arena.



I've got to agree with what you're saying.
I'd just like to add that it's you guys who are talking about the French being pissed off because our influence is declining . As a whole, and this includes me, we don't look out to influence anyone, maybee some of our politicians are but they're full of themselves. Who cares if we influence anyone. Just let nations work toghether towards peace and not necessarily look at nations like france which oppose other nations like trying to gain influence. There is a need for a certain mix of ideas so to please everyone and not a small number of powerful countries.


----------



## j07950

Don't know what happened there...replied to nosarcasm's post but can't find it anywhere...this is weird...


----------



## j07950

Oh I see I was on the first page not the last...nevermind, there has been 24 pages since...forget that then...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Oh I see I was on the first page not the last...nevermind, there has been 24 pages since...forget that then...




Zut allors!  Incroyable!  La Tete du mairde!


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Zut allors!  Incroyable!  La Tete du mairde!


"La Tete du mairde!"??????
What were you even trying to say?
Give it up...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> "La Tete du mairde!"??????
> What were you even trying to say?
> Give it up...



Ummm.  okay.


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Ummm.  okay.



I think the jig is up.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> I think the jig is up.




This bastard is from Mexico!


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This bastard is from Mexico!




Non, c'est impossible!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

It's Julien the Hermaphrodite From Parts Unknown!


----------



## Mr. P

Mexico? are ya sure?


----------



## Merlin1047

I suspect he's a resident of Fire Island.


----------



## Said1

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I suspect he's a resident of Fire Island.



Was that the setting for the book "Lord of the Flies"? I forget


----------



## Mr. P

a feriner either way..


----------



## padisha emperor

> It's Julien the Hermaphrodite From Parts Unknown!


what are you saying ?
Julien is not an "hermaphrodite" name, moron.
Do you know that english and frenchhave not the same names ? yes. so...



> Zut allors! Incroyable! La Tete du mairde!


wow !
instead of critisizing us when we speak english, try to write correctly  7 french words.
You see, hard to speak an other language.


----------



## ekrem

Zhukov said:
			
		

> How many were intentionally fired upon, where the specific intent was to kill unarmed civilians?
> 
> You deliberately ignore intent.
> 
> We do not intentionally drop bombs on unarmed civilians.
> 
> Your logic equates a person who accidentally kills another in a car crash with a murderer.




it was on abridge in ivory coast. In the internet there are videos of this french shooting into the mass.


----------



## Wolfe

canavar said:
			
		

> it was on abridge in ivory coast. In the internet there are videos of this french shooting into the mass.


where can i find these videos?


----------



## ekrem

please wait, i will search for it.


----------



## ekrem

Wolfe said:
			
		

> where can i find these videos?




the video is in original 100 MB.

this is a compressed version of 15 MB. if the quality is bad search for the big original.

http://www.freewillblog.com/ivoryhigh.wmv


----------



## Wolfe

canavar said:
			
		

> the video is in original 100 MB.
> 
> this is a compressed version of 15 MB. if the quality is bad search for the big original.
> 
> http://www.freewillblog.com/ivoryhigh.wmv


Thanks.
Why did the french shoot into the crowd? it seems like they were only making noise etc. it seems rather harsh treatment for these people.


----------



## padisha emperor

thanks for this document.

Wel, maybe a dozen of killed persons. of course, it a dozen too much.

But I really like to have some video of Iraqi civilians killing. oups, i can't, here there is no informations, and a camera doesn't "survive" when it take a bomb  

I totally respect your troops in raq, sadly some of them are to young and panic a lot. It's a fact you can't deny it.
French soldiers, like brits, are more profe'ssional for the peace ops.

But if this document is here just to show this thing, ok; and i agree, for the information given.
if it is to say "look frenchy, your troops kill too civilians !", I will say : bullshit : a dozen VS. several thousands...no possible comparaison.

(did you see the UN car burning at the end ? here again a difference : France had a UNO mandate, and then acted in total legality  )


----------



## Harmageddon

But of course Europe will dominate the world. 
It's what we do. 
It's what we cannot not do.

Sorry.


----------



## theHawk

This thread is downright comical !


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Harmageddon said:
			
		

> But of course Europe will dominate the world.
> It's what we do.
> It's what we cannot not do.
> 
> Sorry.




Europe dominate the world?  Don't make me laugh.  Bunch o'pussies.


----------



## vood00_doll1313

The Swiss are lame.  They claim neutrality when there backyard is getting pounded, but then Europe expected the U.S. to fight for them.  How do you ask someone to fight when you are unwilling to defend yourself.  Wack! Cowardly!  We should have let them fall.  Talk about a waste of oxygen.  Just my opiniion. Good day!


----------



## mightypeon

What a weird thread....
Concerning the EU: There was a time where it looked like, against British opposition, the German-French Tandem may transform it into a more "nation state" like thing.
Than the US/UK succesfully got in a bunch of Trojan Horses, also known as Poland and the Baltic countries, who are largely US satellites, and promplty started to piss of Russia.

Concering French military history: It had its good days, it had its bad days. Its bad days are significantly overstated in the "American public image", the US employ the "overstate your enemies, understate your allies" PR apporach to almost totally ridiculous matters. 
Please bear in mind that France unified very early, meaning that, throughout the Rennaisance and the early modern times, one always needed a coalition to fight them.
The only other true nation states in that period were the Dutch, England, and Spain, all of them waged war against each other as often as against France.
Austria rarely commited to agressive warfare, their own position was often precarious and they had to care much more about their diplomatic status than the French did, since the amount of support the German states gave them heavily depended on the perceived legitimacy of their actions.
Russia and the Scandinavian countries tended to have other interests than France, although France had a history of using the Scandinavians as proxys. They first subsidized the Danish intervention during the 30 years war, then they subsidzed Gustaf Vasas Swedish intervention in the 30 years war, then they got pissed and did it themselfs, reaching their goals with relative ease.

Concerning the Iraq war: 1: It was against European interests, especially because going into Iraq indicates that one also wishes to go into Iran, a big no for continental European powers.
2: The public opinion was fiercely against the war
3: Precisly what would France or Germany gain in case of a victory? Most likely not much at all, since beeing the junior partner sucks in the "divide the spoils" game. We Euros obviously dislike beeing blown up by terrorists, for that reason we are in AFG. Irak had nothing to do with 9/11 period.
4: The US cited WMDs of Iraq, terrorist links to Al Quaida and the "evilness of Sadamm" as their Casus Belli. Noone disputes Sadamm beeing an a-hole, the WMD thing in Iraq was believed to be true, but the Al-Quaida Iraq link was ridiculous from the get go. Toppling secular gouverments in the middle east is Al-Quaidas main and loudly stated goal, the notion of Al Quaida allying with the most secular state of the middle east (baring Turkey, which is a different thing) was nuts, for me at that time I was like:
"Hmm, OK Sadamm is an arse, he may have WMDs, and the USA blatantly lies about alleged Terrorist links." The obvious and Blatant terrorist link lie also created doubt concerning the other Casus belli.
5: Beeing pro peace and agaisnt Bush was key for Schroeder to get reelected.


----------



## Alvin

theim said:


> wolvie20m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we got a few of those too. It would be foolish to use a terrible weapon such as that. Yet they might just be that stupid, espeacially if they think they can take us.
> 
> 
> 
> If it came to an invasion by a superior force, it wouldn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we are (were? I forget if we scrapped it or not) working on a missle defence sheild. Let France lob her nukes. We'll blast 'em out of the sky.
> 
> When the AP reporter scores the pullizer winning photo of the Eiffel Tower buckling and crashing just as the Nuclear Shockwave hits it, I'm gonna make a poster of that and mount it on my bedroom wall. Such a sweet thing to see right before I fall asleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Snicker*.
> 
> Got to love the gap between that statement and reality.
Click to expand...


----------



## Said1

A four year old thread. LOLZ.


----------



## Alvin

I just got here........


----------



## Said1

Alvin said:


> I just got here........



OK. Make sure you pay close attention to the brilliance I posted in this thread. True genius.


----------

