View Full Version : France
For all those which speak about the French Soldiers without knowing only one of them and who believe all that the media their say, here what says Gen. James L Jones ( first U.S. Marine to serve as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe) of the French soldiers.
NEWSWEEK’s Christopher ****ey for an exclusive interview.
****EY: What do you make of the rift between the United States and France?
JONES: It saddens me, to be honest with you. I grew up in both cultures. I identify with what France went through in the difficult times of Algeria, of Indochina, the postwar reconstruction, which I lived through starting in 1947. I remember the big green buses with the white stars driving all over Paris—only Americans could get on those buses. It was possible for American families to come and be stationed in France and never speak French, or never even have contact with French culture. I think that created perceptions and divisions that perhaps contributed to the state of affairs—I don’t know what it is. But I regret it, and I can tell you that at the military level it does not exist.
Some Americans call the French “surrender monkeys.”
France has probably the most expeditionary army [i.e., ready to deploy to distant battlefields] in Europe. And writ large. They have impressive military capabilities across the whole spectrum of operations. They’re good at peacekeeping; their Air Force is modern, state of the art; their Navy is modern; their land Army I know about because I served with them in northern Iraq 11 years ago, and I know their generals—this is a very, very fine army.
All was known as.......
original text:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/972918.asp?0bl=-0
jdbjdb
10-31-2003, 02:59 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq. And we just showed how insignificant France is when we decided to go ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom, when France said they would veto. France has always be rude when it comes to The United States of America or anything American related. It was in the best interest of the middle east and the world to remove Saddam, but after all it was Chirac who sold Saddam his nuclear reactor.
Gordon
10-31-2003, 03:10 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq.
Come off it man, it's called using whatever leverage you've got to acheive your aims and when it comes to politics and international politics everyone does it whether they be French, Bristish, American or Chinese, granted some may do it worse than others but it happens all the time.
pinkeye
10-31-2003, 03:10 PM
but don't be so quick to judge: the use of the veto has not been limited to france. the u.s., for example, has exercised its veto power in defiance of the international community (e.g. support for israel) on numerous occasions, as has russia, china (most recently in 1997 over the taiwan issue), etc. all five permanent members of the security council have exercised their veto power for any number of reasons. for a complete list:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
pinkeye
10-31-2003, 03:24 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq. And we just showed how insignificant France is when we decided to go ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom, when France said they would veto. France has always be rude when it comes to The United States of America or anything American related. It was in the best interest of the middle east and the world to remove Saddam, but after all it was Chirac who sold Saddam his nuclear reactor.
for your information, here is a detailed list highlighting the u.s.-iraq relationship during the 1980s:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html
Vance
10-31-2003, 03:26 PM
Oh God, please make it stop
Vance
10-31-2003, 03:27 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq. And we just showed how insignificant France is when we decided to go ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom, when France said they would veto. France has always be rude when it comes to The United States of America or anything American related. It was in the best interest of the middle east and the world to remove Saddam, but after all it was Chirac who sold Saddam his nuclear reactor.
for your information, here is a detailed list highlighting the u.s.-iraq relationship during the 1980s:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html
Why don't you post France-Iraq relationship while you're at it. Jeez, I get so tired of this ****e
jdbjdb
10-31-2003, 03:29 PM
Your right its always about protecting ones intrest , The United States, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, but not France nor Germany
France sucks, plain and simple
pinkeye
10-31-2003, 04:01 PM
Oh God, please make it stop
if you are implying that the u.s. is being criticised, it is not. i, along with others, are merely pointing out that a simplistic "black and white" statement, i.e., france is bad, doesn't accurately reflect reality.
Jeez these French/USa relationship topics are getting reallyd retarded :cantbeli:
Deuterium
10-31-2003, 04:15 PM
Regardless of the current state on France's military, it doesn't erase their sordid record of military failure.
pinkeye
10-31-2003, 04:27 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq. And we just showed how insignificant France is when we decided to go ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom, when France said they would veto. France has always be rude when it comes to The United States of America or anything American related. It was in the best interest of the middle east and the world to remove Saddam, but after all it was Chirac who sold Saddam his nuclear reactor.
for your information, here is a detailed list highlighting the u.s.-iraq relationship during the 1980s:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html
Why don't you post France-Iraq relationship while you're at it. Jeez, I get so tired of this ****e
what for? a previous post already mentionned france's selling reactors to iraq, so why would i repeat what we already know and what has already been posted? we all know that several states, including france, were involved in supporting saddam. however, one often gets the impression that some are not necessarily aware of american involvement. i don't believe anyone has argued that france has a clean record, so unless you want me to continually state the obvious, i.e., that france is no angel, it should be pointed out that there are at least two sides to every story. in the context of this thread, france was unfairly criticised. if people are going to be critical, they should at least be aware and recognise of the skeletons in their own closets.
jdbjdb
10-31-2003, 05:15 PM
one more thing...we Americnas like our women to shave their arm-pits rofl
Vance
10-31-2003, 05:17 PM
Jeez these French/USa relationship topics are getting reallyd retarded :cantbeli:
Pinkeye: THAT'S what I mean.
Fargin
10-31-2003, 05:20 PM
...
Miles Teg
11-02-2003, 11:02 AM
...
ShotOver
11-02-2003, 11:07 AM
The french Army, what's that?
The french Army, what's that?
just another thing like the 'canadian military power' ;D
EvanL
11-02-2003, 01:45 PM
The french Army, what's that?
just another thing like the 'canadian military power' ;D
Coming from a dutchman thats not much of an insult man.
well yea, i know we aint the military mightiest country of europe either, and it was just a joke on the steady degration of the canadian military since ww2, however, when you look at the size of the country and population, our military is still bigger and more badass than yours :P
EvanL
11-02-2003, 02:07 PM
Not really man. We sell most of our surplus to holland.
exactely...we got all your surplus...and then some :p
wholagun
11-02-2003, 02:15 PM
We Americans didn't like the way Chirac tried to bully Latvia or was it Lithuania? France was saying they would not allow them to join NATO if they supported The United States in Iraq and also don't forget, Chirac and Shorder (to some degree but I think its more Chirac forcing Shorder's arm) told Poland that if they didn't agree in the EU to the voting terms and for supporting Iraq that they would cut off funds..So much for the equality in the EU eh.. if Poland and other small states are threatened by bigger states for conforming to what Chirac wants,,, well he can take all those Euro's we are suppose to get and wipe his ass with them cause i don't want them.
funny how everyone only knows the french bullying (which i totally condemn as well btw)
ever heard how the US threated to recall arms support to countries that wanted to support the ICC?
Smintjes
11-02-2003, 02:51 PM
You guys clearly have never been to France. Normandy, The Provence, The Pyrennees, Bretagne, La Dordogne, ... such a lovely and beautiful country!
You guys clearly have never been to France. Normandy, The Provence, The Pyrennees, Bretagne, La Dordogne, ... such a lovely and beautiful country!
And lets us not forget the great wines and champagne :D
Vance
11-02-2003, 04:02 PM
And the countless memorials to the Allied soldiers that died there...
SFontaine
11-02-2003, 04:23 PM
Aren't we like.. All allies here?
And the countless memorials to the Allied soldiers that died there...
you should pay a visit to the war cemetary near Omaha beach near Vierville...it's the one you also see in the opening and ending scene of Saving Private Ryan. It's very very impressive...
Smintjes
11-02-2003, 05:24 PM
And the countless memorials to the Allied soldiers that died there...
you should pay a visit to the war cemetary near Omaha beach near Vierville...it's the one you also see in the opening and ending scene of Saving Private Ryan. It's very very impressive...
Been there. I did the grand tour of the museums and invasion beaches in Normandy, back in 1990. Impressive stuff.
1990? arr...too long ago...apparently they gave all the war monuments n stuff a whole overhaul in 1994 because of the 50-year anniversary..
Smintjes
11-02-2003, 05:31 PM
I'm thinking of going to Bretagne again on holiday next year. And since Normandy is on the way over there coming from Belgium, I'm planning on paying another visit to the sites.
budanski
11-02-2003, 05:31 PM
Yeah. we love what they did to the place.
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003150352,00.jpg
California Joe
11-02-2003, 05:40 PM
I just knew you'd find that picture evil monkey. ;)
French military might peaked right before Peregrin Maitland's guards stood up at Waterloo....
Guttorm
11-02-2003, 07:03 PM
I think it's sort of sad, to judge a country as a whole, based on the decisons of their politicians...
I've never been to France, but I belive it to be a great country, and the few french people I've met have been very intellegent and friendly.
I HAVE been to the US (Well, east coast, anyway.. :) ) and found americans to be very interesting and friendly people. When they learned I was from europe, they were all very interested in hearing about my country. Polite and intellegent people.
I don't think bickering between politicians should cause the PEOPLE to dislike eachother.
Guttorm.
Norway.
ShotOver
11-03-2003, 03:07 AM
Well, i didnt see an Pro- Iraq war rallies in France, so that means their whole country sucks, and so do the people that live there.
After all we did for them they write insults on our graves, the boys that did that should be dragged into the street and shot like dogs.
Guttorm
11-03-2003, 05:40 AM
I agree that the people who desecrated the graves of those brave men who died in WWII should have terrible things to them,
but i doubt it was a joint effort of the entire country...
And just because they didn't have prowar rallyes, doesen't mean that people there didn't support the war effort.
There were people here (Norway) that supported it, but thay never went out on the streets with it. But they were there in the polls.
Macs.
11-03-2003, 05:41 AM
France is a nice country, but the people suck.
ShotOver
11-03-2003, 05:42 AM
yeah, your right.
The vandalised WW1 graves aswell.
Mortimer
11-03-2003, 05:49 AM
I was in france during the war in April........the media was pretty damn biased, all you saw were wounded Iraqi civilians, not much else.
And yeah the French people are real wankers, they pretend not to speak english when its obvious they can.
we didn't stay long :fork:
ShotOver
11-03-2003, 05:53 AM
Yeah, i've been there too. Bunch of real wankers.
mocking_loudly_died
11-03-2003, 06:19 AM
I had a french girly once, she use to abuse me all the time in her native tongue (because I'm a lazy mother f*cker). ;)
French people are fine.....they just can't fight cause their sissies :lol:
stephane from Paris
11-03-2003, 06:37 AM
The messages on the wall is clearly done by arabs imigrants (8% of people here), so don't use that to judge!
Fargin
11-03-2003, 07:22 AM
This only thing more arrogant than the average parisian is the goddamn tourists, who expect everyone to serve them in perfect english. My experience is that some french people especially edlerly, don't speak english very well and will respond defensivly if forced. Starting polite with a short french curtecy is sometimes all you need to open them up. Some will, when they hear your french is as bad as their english, relax and actually make an effort to understand you and even respond in english. Just because Americans speaks english almost fluently, doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
Starting a converstaion with: "parle pas farncais" is an insult.
"Non I don't parle francais frogface"
"Oh Monsieur... maintenant j'irai chier en votre potage. ...putain touriste"
...sorry my french is a bit rusty :oops:
Fargin, you are so right.
Mortimer, that was one of the most retard comment I've ever read. Not everybody in france speaks english, and many don't speak it well enough to answer correctly. Did you even try to speak french? Did you even ask in the person you were speaking to spoke english before asking him something? What would you say if I were to go to the US and ask questions in french to everybody I met? Who would be the ****er?
And Budanski, get a grip. Yeah, those people who did this to the graves are some real mother ****ers. But how on earth can you imply that all french people are responsible of this, or are thinking the same way? How can you judge a whole nation on the behaviour of two or three ****ing low lives?
And Budanski, get a grip. Yeah, those people who did this to the graves are some real mother f***. But how on earth can you imply that all french people are responsible of this, or are thinking the same way? How can you judge a whole nation on the behaviour of two or three f*** low lives?
yup...don't forget budanski is living in a country himself where pro-nazi parties are totally legal & tolerated....now does that mean every american is a nazi bastard? :roll:
p.s. i agree the few guys (or girls) who molested those graves should get a horrible death...
Fargin
11-03-2003, 08:02 AM
I love visiting Paris, but I try to aviod the tourist traps. I hate going to Paris with someone who haven't been there before, because then I'm forced to see all these people again: badly dressed with bagpacks and cameras, impolite and eager to be the first the get the picture or the custommade unique experience. Oh and the street verdors tripping over eachother to force you to look at their plastic souvenir while they try to guess where you're from:
"Oh oh from Denmark? I speak a little danish: HAAAWWWWW DOOOO YOOO DOOO? I knew a danish girls once, now you my new danish friend. Now drop your pants, so I can screw you over with my I [heart] Paris t-shirt and plastic eiffel tower."
...anyways the molested gravesites where a few stupid teenagers being stupid teenagers. It is something every decent person would turn against. Try not to blow everything out of proportion, just because the media needs to make a buck. :|
stephane from Paris
11-03-2003, 08:38 AM
Thanks fargin you're right!!
I learned english (2 hours/weeks in school) and if i understand what i read and can write not so bad, every times i went in England i had the same feeling to understand only 20% of the language because english speaks to fast!! when i have a look on CNN i understand 5%!!!!!!????
American english has so differents sounds than UK ones , sorry London's one because in the north of England the sound is like speaking with ships in the mouth!
Most of people here learned english but forget it because they never practise but English/americans rarely try to help as they thinks that everybody could/should practise a perfect english.
btw you'll have the same problem in Italia or spain!!!
regards from France
stephane
Fargin
11-03-2003, 09:00 AM
France like germany and Spain often synchronize instead of using subtitles, which in my oppinion unfortunately narrows peoples linguistic horizons. I learned all the basic rules and words in school, but it was traveling to the countries, seeing film and reading literature that made me capable of actually having a decent conversation.
France like germany and Spain often synchronize instead of using subtitles, which in my oppinion unfortunately narrows peoples linguistic horizons. I learned all the basic rules and words in school, but it was traveling to the countries, seeing film and reading literature that made me capable of actually having a decent conversation.
lol yea synchronizing is one of the worst habits in the world if you ask me...thank god they don't do it here...
basically the biggest problem with the french not speaking english is not that they don't want to, but that they simply CAN't...i'm not kidding here, we had a students exchange with them, and even the younger populations were really bad at english; hell, my french was better than their english...and i totally suck at french :lol:
Fargin
11-03-2003, 09:23 AM
Foreign exchange programs are great. Them best way to learn a language is to know some basic grammar/words and then being forced to think that language. I can change my mind so I think english within 15 min., german or french I have to speak it for a couple of days before it comes back to me.
Denmark used to have a great connection to Germany, but alot of our german heritage has been lost.
budanski
11-03-2003, 09:49 AM
And Budanski, get a grip. Yeah, those people who did this to the graves are some real mother f***. But how on earth can you imply that all french people are responsible of this, or are thinking the same way? How can you judge a whole nation on the behaviour of two or three f*** low lives?
You must be one psychic son of a bitch. I don't know how you did it, but that was amazing. :roll: How'd you come up with what I meant from just my one post on this thread
Yeah. we love what they did to the place.
yup...don't forget budanski is living in a country himself where pro-nazi parties are totally legal & tolerated....now does that mean every american is a nazi bastard?
Show me the camps. Show me the ones being thrown in ovens and made into soap. Show me the millions of people being gassed. Show me the tattoos on people's arms. Show me elderly Muslim men being beaten in the streets, their stores smashed, and books burned. Show me huge piles of emaciated bodies stocked high like cords of wood. Until then, come back to me and discuss with me where Bush is a Nazi.
Maybe you should check whats happening in your backyard before you open your cheese eating trap. (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/09/30/2003069873/print)
Show me the camps. Show me the ones being thrown in ovens and made into soap. Show me the millions of people being gassed. Show me the tattoos on people's arms. Show me elderly Muslim men being beaten in the streets, their stores smashed, and books burned. Show me huge piles of emaciated bodies stocked high like cords of wood. Until then, come back to me and discuss with me where Bush is a Nazi.
calm down man, for once i wasn't talking about bush, i was talking about those pro-nazi parties and for example the KKK that are around in your country...
Maybe you should check whats happening in your backyard before you open your cheese eating trap. (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/09/30/2003069873/print)
1, germany is not my backyard, 2, believe me, even though neo-nazism is around in germany, most of the germans are simply ashamed of it, and the government is doing all it can to put a stop to neo-nazism...
Smintjes
11-03-2003, 10:22 AM
Show me the camps. Show me the ones being thrown in ovens and made into soap. Show me the millions of people being gassed. Show me the tattoos on people's arms. Show me elderly Muslim men being beaten in the streets, their stores smashed, and books burned. Show me huge piles of emaciated bodies stocked high like cords of wood. Until then, come back to me and discuss with me where Bush is a Nazi.
Budanski, he was saying that Americans aren't nazis.
As for languages, thanks to our splendid Belgian education system, I speak Dutch (mother tongue) and English fluently, I speak a rather good mouth af French, I read and understand French fluently and I have little problems with German. :)
Ah so I guess the 8% of the populaiton which is Arab is reposnsible for giving the French such a bad name. Newsflash you frenchie little crack babies: Your so damn worried/discriminatory/racist against your African immigrants but watch the hell out. They arnt the threat, all they care about is making some money for their family. The real threat are the Arabs/muslims. I alread hear that they are failing to embrace Frances culture of assimilation and inclusion. Even in France, the most liberal nation on earth, the damn muslims arnt happy. Already they seperate themselves into different schools, neighborhoods, etc.... What gets me is this: 1. Muslims flee religious oppression of their own country to a more liberal free and tolerent society 2. They live there a few years and are happy and make money. 3. Then, they start to agitate for Sharia holly law and look down upon the society which accepted and nurtured them 4. They start withdrawing from society and forming groups agitating for Muslim rule 5. They start applying whatever laws they wish on themselves, such as honor killings, forcing women to wear veil etc. 6. When liberal democracy's attempt to defend these poor women from Muslim abuse and male domination, they argue that said govnts are anti islamic and agaisnt civil rights and there is no authority other than gods law: sharia 7. Said Muslims begin a holy war against their host country and its peoples, using rape, murder terror etc etc etc. 8. Said Muslims cause govnt to restrict civil liberties etc etc to defend the people from terror and mass killings and civil war. 9. Muslims again flee after they have turned the nice country into a ****hole with an oppresive govnt. They go to a new liberal free democracy and repeat the process. Muslims are the great plague against democracy and equal rights under the law. They and the religion of Islam, spread like a plague across the globe, destroying peoples lives. Just look at the fault lines where Islam is and isnt yet. They are ALL areas of extreme violence. The prophet Mohamed was a rampaging murderer and Islam spreads still today through war and violence. Look at every sinlge predominately Muslim country. They are ALL ****holes where women have either no rights, few rights, or are have some rights but are still restricted to being a second class or a subclass. I dont know about everyone else , but I would rather live under Stalin and Hitler than under The govnts in the Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc. It bothers me that while everyone calls Hitler a evil tyrant and Stalin a madman (which they certainly both were), they ignore that Muslim regimes today all over the world are killing their own citizens by the millions and exporting terrorist violence and uncompromising ideology just as Hitler and Stalin did. In the Sudan for example, the Muslim govnt is waging a war of genocide agaisnt the poor Christians in the south and west which has killed 2 million. In Pakistan, Shiites and Sunni's kill eachother in the tens of thousands. The Saudi's support terror and extermist Wahabi Islam all over the globe. The Iranians support terror agasint Israel and many others. The Syrians do the same. My point: Europe should be more worried and aware that Muslim populations are expanding rapidly and with that expansion will come violence of the most extreme nature. Where there are Muslims, free nations are at risk. Not all Muslims are bad, OF course there are rather secular Muslims just as there are secular religious people of other faiths, but the Imams and their Madrasas easily mold violent students who WILL wage a war of terror agasnt the poeple and govnts of Europe in the near future. BEWARE!!!! By the way, I am not a Christian nor am I a racist. People can take the easy way out by labeling me that and then dismissing me instead of what Im saying. I actually have several moderate Muslim freinds. I also believe radical religion is a threat in general, such a Jerry Falwell types who support Christian nutcasses on the 700 club in the United States. These men are a severe threat to liberty. If they had there way in America, it would already be a theocracy America would be just like Afghanstan, only preaching the bible instead of the Koran. So no, Im not some Christian who hates Islam, But I AM just some dude who see's the threat of religion in general, and Islam specifically, to free liberal democracy.
Miles Teg
11-03-2003, 01:34 PM
A huge and indigest block of letters. Maybe interesting, can you edit and put some air in it?
What are you thinking about french politic interest me, seriously.
Now, I will continue to try to read your post.
Fargin
11-03-2003, 04:12 PM
damn
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
read
that huge
pile
of
...words.
Done... no comments.
Nizark
11-03-2003, 04:43 PM
damn I could go for some freedom fries and sonoma county wine right now rofl
Macs.
11-03-2003, 05:04 PM
Show me the camps. Show me the ones being thrown in ovens and made into soap. Show me the millions of people being gassed. Show me the tattoos on people's arms. Show me elderly Muslim men being beaten in the streets, their stores smashed, and books burned. Show me huge piles of emaciated bodies stocked high like cords of wood. Until then, come back to me and discuss with me where Bush is a Nazi.
calm down man, for once i wasn't talking about bush, i was talking about those pro-nazi parties and for example the KKK that are around in your country...
Well, you even got Pro-Nazi parties in the Nederlands, Germany, Denmark, England etc :roll:
Muslims are the great plague against democracy and equal rights under the law. They and the religion of Islam, spread like a plague across the globe, destroying peoples lives. Just look at the fault lines where Islam is and isnt yet. They are ALL areas of extreme violence. The prophet Mohamed was a rampaging murderer and Islam spreads still today through war and violence. Look at every sinlge predominately Muslim country.
You are 100% right, this is true.
Miles Teg
11-03-2003, 05:06 PM
Need backup !!!
Euhhh besoin de renforts, ca devient vraiment chaud ici !!!
California Joe
11-03-2003, 05:36 PM
Tell Major Heywood why he has nothing to fear from the French and this Marquis de Montcalm, you see their latent voluptuousness combined with natural Gallic laziness assures that they would rather eat and make love with their faces than fight......
Actually that sounds pretty damned good right this second.... ;)
Smintjes
11-03-2003, 05:57 PM
damn I could go for some freedom fries and sonoma county wine right now rofl
There is no such thing as French fries. Fries originate from Belgium.
Miles Teg
11-03-2003, 06:08 PM
Imported by Marco polo, who stypidly confuse with the Macaroni !
(Joke from Dupa, by Sem of Cubitus) :lol:
My surname is Frans, which is a little Flamish, isn't it?
Budanski, no need to be a psychic SOB when every other post you write here is so biased toward french hatred. But I guess you must be too brilliant to admit that too. Then please explain who you were talking about in "we love what THEY did to the place".
I guess your next smartass answer will be to ask for a complete list of your posts against french people, or something like this...
Thank god there's so many great people in the US to compensate your self centered, foxnews biased arrogance.
budanski
11-03-2003, 07:26 PM
Don't kid yourself - I call as I see it. The Frogs along with Russians were doing the best they could to kill as many American as possible by arming, aiding, and advising Saddam.
Want some proof on this? and no its not from Foxnews.
Hussein Was Sure Of Own Survival
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer)
November 3, 2003
Steve Coll
Saddam Hussein refused to order a counterattack against U.S. troops when war erupted in March because he misjudged the initial ground thrust as a ruse and had been convinced earlier by Russian and French contacts that he could avoid or survive a land invasion, former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has told interrogators, according to U.S. officials.
Aziz, who surrendered to U.S. authorities on April 24, has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war, an assertion that echoes the previously reported statements of other detained Iraqi leaders and scientists. Yet Hussein personally ordered several secret programs to build or buy long-range missiles in defiance of international sanctions, according to Aziz's reported statements.
The former deputy prime minister has described an argument he had with Hussein in 1999, in which the Iraqi president insisted that U.N. Resolution 687, enacted to limit Iraq's armaments, prohibited long-range missiles only if they were armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Aziz said he countered, "No, it's a range limit," and all Iraqi missiles able to fly beyond 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) were banned, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the interrogation reports. Hussein demanded in reply, "No, I want to go ahead," according to the senior official.
Otherwise, shut your trap, sit back and enjoy the ride.
Fargin
11-03-2003, 07:51 PM
Always nice to see an unbias piece of idiocy p-)
ouch! Touché!
Yeah, I must confess, I personnaly called saddam to tell him he was safe down there. But that was the idea of the old lady living on the 3rd floor. She and the janitor of the other building down the street called Tarek Aziz to have him deliver the message to saddam too.
See? We are all guilty as charged. Even my newborn son. Why the hell did he chose to be born a surrender monkey?
Nice try, but then try again. You're just proving me right with your "let's blame them all" mentality.
Guess what champion, there is people here supporting this war. I'M supporting this war, eventhough I don't think it was based on the correct reasons. I'M supporting the US of A, minus the few select smartass prick, mister know-it-all like you. Anyway, for what you care...
But I digress... I'm still waiting for your answer about who you meant by "they" in your first post.
budanski
11-03-2003, 07:58 PM
Just as long we get it straight that I'm a mister-know-it-all.
Durandal
11-03-2003, 09:24 PM
This is not a criticism so much as a question...
I have heard a lot of "We are going to bulid a better military force capable of going anywhere in the world."
Where is France going to get the money? They barely have enough to train properly and they have had nation-wide strikes over the governments cutting back on the retirement age and vacation weeks to make ends meet.
Now for the criticism...
Now this is a criticizm...From a military standpoint, I simply do not think France has a firm hold on reality when it comes to the military. I do not think they will surrender at a drop of a hat and I do not think France is a "Speed Bump for German panzers." I do think that their experience over the last decade in the Balklans is poor to mediocre. I also think that there is enough nationalizm in France, in regards to its surrounding neighbors (and Europe as a whole) that I would fear their role as a military power.
Just my two cents...
mocking_loudly_died
11-03-2003, 09:25 PM
I was only pro-war because I love those damned tasty freedom fries budanski cooked up for me.
Thanks my imperialist American nemesis. :D
stephane from Paris
11-04-2003, 06:04 AM
Well when you speak about weapons we are supposed to send prior the war, do you speak about the missile that polish found and said "it the prove there a 2003 marking on it!!! " this info was taken by US press and by Rumsfeld gang!!
And...????
Polish prime minister send public apologies, one of his minister leaved his government BECAUSE France gave proof that this missile is end of production since 15years (:o)))))) Btw in the US this information wasn't presented!!!
Since no evidence of any weapons given by France or Russia and during the war no use of these ghost weapons!!
rumsfeld gang need a new ennemy since Russia is out (not in the future, Russia will change its military power and said that they'll do the same as US if their interrests or people is under menace anywhere in the world).
btw we have +300 nuclear heads in stock (submarine/land to land missile/air to land missiles), Chirac said it's to much and too powerfull for future menace, where's the problem?
Guttorm
11-04-2003, 06:24 AM
I also remember some vague stroy about the US giving weapons to Iraq AND Iran...
Remember that budanski? :D
Nothing wrong with France
Nothing wrong with the US
Somethings are wrong in the world.
Lets focus on the things that are wrong.
We are all equal but not the same.
_____________________________
The mind is the best weapon.
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 07:01 AM
Thanks Henk.
"The mind is the best weapon, and a thought is its ammunition"
budanski
11-04-2003, 10:29 AM
gay[/color] Paris]Well when you speak about weapons we are supposed to send prior the war, do you speak about the missile that polish found and said "it the prove there a 2003 marking on it!!! " this info was taken by US press and by Rumsfeld gang!!
And...????
Polish prime minister send public apologies, one of his minister leaved his government BECAUSE France gave proof that this missile is end of production since 15years (:o)))))) Btw in the US this information wasn't presented!!!
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid82/p6b02c60d9dea16b23e6816b5e94e7abd/fae9e70c.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid82/p7278085b71a0f183d590a1b48cb74100/fae9e707.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid82/pc1b0d0cd80afdb8bd752a5f51933625b/fae9e708.jpg
I wonder how Rummy got Polish television to get involved in this conspiracy theory :roll:
"2003" - "1993".. The missiles still ended up in Iraq - after the embargo... No amount of "dancing" can cover up the fact that the missiles are there - and they should not be there if France was in compliance with the UN embargoes..
For an interesting discussion of the allegations of French sales to Saddam in the past couple of years, see the French embassy's list (http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/negativepress.asp)(with denials conventiently included).
gay[/color] Paris]Since no evidence of any weapons given by France or Russia and during the war no use of these ghost weapons!!
rumsfeld gang need a new ennemy since Russia is out (not in the future, Russia will change its military power and said that they'll do the same as US if their interrests or people is under menace anywhere in the world).
http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif
source: SIPRI Arms transfers to Iraq, 1973-2002 (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html)
I also remember some vague stroy about the US giving weapons to Iraq AND Iran...
Remember that budanski?
Actually that is quite well known and in government records. The support the US gave Saddam was limited to commercial interests and small bits of sattelite intel.
There has been and never was any controversial imports from the US to Iraq. There is absolutely no documented evidence of such outside of a few vague scraps of facts that conspriracy therorists cobble together.
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 11:29 AM
2003 is the peremptive date :roll:
...
Just a joke, but who know?
And the percentage are between 1973-2002 not 1991-2002. I'm sure 98% of the 13% are made between 1973 and 1990 (maybe less).
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 11:34 AM
Hooo! And if you see a Mirage with 2000-5 write on it, don't be sure it was built in 2000.
He219
11-04-2003, 12:24 PM
rofl
I did'nt know the Roland II and III missiles had a 'USE BY DATE'.
BEST IF USED BY 2003!! That say's it all......
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 12:25 PM
;) Like our cheese !
It's why the american find these missiles, some times after peremption, they begin to "smell". :lol:
He219
11-04-2003, 12:36 PM
;) Like our cheese !
It's why the american find these missiles, some times after peremption, they begin to "smell". :lol:
I thought the Polish troops found your missiles?
This time something rotten isn't smelling in DK, but in FRANCE
- and it has 2003 written on it!
http://www.metrospy.com/store_promo/t55_boycott_button.gif
:D
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 01:19 PM
Excuse me to show some mistakes in my jokes.
And I thought it wasn't our missiles :D
Miles Teg
11-04-2003, 01:34 PM
Oh, I forget again ! (Like Colombo) :)
I think the Roland missiles will be useless without the launchers, like sidewinders with Chapparal and airplanes.
If they found Eryx missile, this will be more disturbing.
EDIT : It seems that a burned launcher was found by Coalition, but it can still a Roland imported before 1990. The difference between Roland launchers 2 and 3 are purely software
The coalition forces (where the France take place too) during 1991 was clearly warn about the weapons available to the Irakian.
http://www.liberation.fr/objets/obj_19850.jpg
stephane from Paris
11-05-2003, 04:43 AM
The number on the package is: 07-01-KND-2003
It's not the production date!!
Defense minister of Poland made the error (he certaily got the hand of Rumsfeld in his ass when he said that joke) and as we prove that it's impossible the Prime minister gave is APOLOGIES!! You understand correctly men???
btw have a look at the package! don't you thinks that they are very well damaged for a just new production?????
Close your TV and thinks by yourself!
And yes, boycott french products, since 500,000 americans in USA works for the 50 biggests french companies the majors victims will be: americans!
Regards
stephane
martinexsquaddie
11-05-2003, 07:02 AM
US fail miserably to understand point rofl rofl
budanski
11-05-2003, 09:46 AM
gay[/b] Paris]The number on the package is: 07-01-KND-2003
It's not the production date!!
Defense minister of Poland made the error (he certaily got the hand of Rumsfeld in his ass when he said that joke) and as we prove that it's impossible the Prime minister gave is APOLOGIES!! You understand correctly men???
Please let me reiterate
"2003" - "1993".. The missiles still ended up in Iraq - after the embargo... No amount of "dancing" can cover up the fact that the missiles are there - and they should not be there if France was in compliance with the UN embargoes.
gay[/b] Paris]btw have a look at the package! don't you thinks that they are very well damaged for a just new production?????
Close your TV and thinks by yourself!
We're very capable of making our own jugdement thank you. At least our major media outlets arent state-owned as in Froggystan. We here in the U.S. have what you call a Free Press.
gay[/b] Paris]And yes, boycott french products, since 500,000 americans in USA works for the 50 biggests french companies the majors victims will be: americans!
Regards
stephane
Lets see, with France in double digit unemployment and a disregard to defecit limits within the EU. Its seems to me you guys need us more than we need you.
stephane from Paris
11-05-2003, 10:19 AM
hi Benny hill,
How you call me? stephane from gay paris ?? hahahahahahah too funny man.
free press you said? you speak about foxnews and NY times perhaps???
Their boss isn't Ruppert Murdock the good friend of bush? Strangely these 2 medias were the most powerfull support of bush politic, they put totaly wrong informations for support war efforts!!
Here we have ultraleft newspapers to ultraright ones, and you???? That's real free press man!!
No mention of 1993 on the missile and Rumsfeld himself shut his month (have a look on past washington post issue).
I'm not sure so far that we need youmore that you need us (EU), but one thing is clear now more and more people don't like your point of view .
You 're right on 1 thing there's ton of unemployments here but do you know that 40millions of americans lived just to the level or under the level of poverty!!!!!
I feels your reply, if they are poors it's because they don't work!!!
Bible says: the last of today will become the first of tomorow!
So learn that the country who has the biggest deficit is USA!!
Have a nice day benny!
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 10:53 AM
State owned medias...
For television we have two public (state owned if you want) channel and they are well known to be less biased than our first channel.
Each evening I'm changing the channel and can see the differences.
With this we've got Canal+ which is the more free of national, I think.
After this we've got Arte, showing us the point of view of one of our neighbours, the germans. Very different but very instructive. One main part of an correct cultural exchange.
Budanski, with your advice and so little point of view I think you absolutely don't care about any cultural exchange (maybe after this you will talk about your origin).
And finally with the sattelit channel, we've got national LCI (but I'm not confident in it), Euronews (much better, but I guess your advice on European channel, but don't forget that Polish are now Europeans)
and when I feel the stamina to listen and understand english, CNN and NBC.
For the paper supports, we've got everything, good as bad.
If with this, you think again my point of view is biased by te medias...
I return the remark to you.
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:05 AM
And I forget again the most important !!!!
We've got "Les guignols de l'info" On canal+
http://matthieudurand.chez.tiscali.fr/wwwbeuah800_2.jpg
http://rocbo.chez.tiscali.fr/Max/culture/tv/img/guignols.gif
http://www.guignols.com/images/sylves.gif
Welcome to the World Company.
Pardon aux familles tout ça !
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 11:07 AM
budanski, public broadcasters in europe are autonomous and independent from the state, as is the cbc in canada and the abc in australia, for example. legislation guarantees freedom of the press. in addition, since public broadcasters obtain the majority of their funding from parliamentary appropriations and/or licensing fees, they are not subjected to the same degree to the whims of the private sector. furthermore, the mandate of public broadcasters is radically different from that of private broadcasters, i.e., the public good vs. profit. i suggest you check out the corporate websites of numerous public broadcasters before discussing freedom of the press.
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:10 AM
YYESSS!!!
I've earn my first star with a post on the guignols.
YEEAHHH!!!
budanski
11-05-2003, 11:12 AM
gay[/b] Paris]hi Benny hill,
How you call me? stephane from gay paris ?? hahahahahahah too funny man.
Think of me as you're "Jerry Lewis"
gay[/b] Paris]
free press you said? you speak about foxnews and NY times perhaps???
Their boss isn't Ruppert Murdock the good friend of bush? Strangely these 2 medias were the most powerfull support of bush politic, they put totaly wrong informations for support war efforts!!
Here we have ultraleft newspapers to ultraright ones, and you???? That's real free press man!!
No mention of 1993 on the missile and Rumsfeld himself shut his month (have a look on past washington post issue).
In any democratic country, information should come from various sources. Can't say this is true in France. Every TV channel, newspaper, radio station... has subscribed to AFP (Agence France Presse), so to receive the news, you have but one source. Guess what? Its state owned.
Its funny you only point out FoxNews and not the other major news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. FoxNews is but one TV station that does not run the radios, newspapers, etc. Its what we here call free press and we don't rely on one source.
gay[/b] Paris]
I'm not sure so far that we need youmore that you need us (EU), but one thing is clear now more and more people don't like your point of view .
You 're right on 1 thing there's ton of unemployments here but do you know that 40millions of americans lived just to the level or under the level of poverty!!!!!
I feels your reply, if they are poors it's because they don't work!!!
I wonder how many other countries see their poor drive in their own cars to receive free food.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.
Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
gay[/b] Paris]
Bible says: the last of today will become the first of tomorow!
So learn that the country who has the biggest deficit is USA!!
Have a nice day benny!
The Truth about the Defecit (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030619-082745-2971r.htm)
Back at you Frogboy.
Shadow
11-05-2003, 11:27 AM
We here in the U.S. have what you call a Free PressLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!
ATOM ROFL rofl
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:27 AM
The work of journalist is to verify facts.
If AFP say something, the journalist are warn and investigate on the subject.
And don't believe they are living only on AFP. You're not so stupid?
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:30 AM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!
ATOM ROFL
Happy to see that someone is happy to see scary stupidity like budanski said :D
Me I'm really scarry.
My only hope : That all americans are not like him.
budanski
11-05-2003, 11:33 AM
We here in the U.S. have what you call a Free PressLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!
ATOM ROFL rofl
Coming from a country where one-third of Germans younger than 30 think the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11. :roll: how surprising.
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:35 AM
classified as poor by the Census Bureau
it's the same level that the announced by some international institute?
Maybe we've not the same definition for poor people.
budanski
11-05-2003, 11:39 AM
Poverty American Style: Cars, TVs, Three-Bedroom Homes
All I know is our "poor" have more access to air conditioning than France's middle class.
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:47 AM
All I know is our "poor" have more access to air conditioning than France's middle class.
It's what you believe.
I'm sad to see a so materialist mind.
You're are rich of posts (top 5 !) but poor of sense.
budanski
11-05-2003, 11:49 AM
This is rich. A frog teaching me sense. rofl
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:52 AM
You still in mistake.
Don't believe I'm trying teaching you, educate will be more adequate, but Im' not educating you too.
Hello Mayhem, Bienvenu
Can you introduce yourself?
Age, activity, location...
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 11:54 AM
Im new to this fourm hello everyone :D
hello! welcome! woot
budanski
11-05-2003, 11:54 AM
Listen kid. The day some snot nose punk like yourself teaches me **** is when...
http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/strange/hell-freezes.jpg
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 11:58 AM
Listen kid. The day some snot nose punk like yourself teaches me **** is when...
Thanks, you see you can agree with me. I'm reassured.
But stop a little to insult everyone
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 12:00 PM
wuff wuffy wuff grr wuff uff?
are you joking? :)
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 12:00 PM
whatcha guys talking about?
About the warm ambience between france and us. :D
We're just comparing recipes. Mmmm...
S Korea dog meat row deepens
Dog meat soup is popular in South Korea
Eating dogs has nothing to do with football's governing body Fifa, South Korea's top soccer official has said.
Chung Mong-Joon, a Fifa vice president and head of the Korea Football Association, was speaking out after Fifa condemned the mistreatment of dogs ahead of next year's World Cup, which South Korea is co-hosting with Japan.
I don't understand why Fifa has raised the issue itself
Chung Mong-Joon
Fifa president Sepp Blatter wrote to Mr Chung last week calling for "immediate and decisive measures" against cruelty.
South Korea banned dog restaurants during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but spicy dog soup is still very popular in summertime, especially among older men.
Mr Chung said there was no need for Fifa to get involved.
"I don't understand why Fifa has raised the issue itself," he told journalists. "I sent a response letter at that time, saying there is nothing to worry about."
Torture banned
Mr Chung quoted another Fifa vice president, Issa Hayatou, as saying South Korea had a long tradition of eating dog meat and that it would not change overnight.
South Korea has laws against animal cruelty
Dog meat is widely considered to improve strength and virility.
Under methods now officially banned, dogs used to be hanged or beaten with bats to soften the flesh before slaughter. They are now killed instantly by electrocution.
But Fifa - backed by animal rights activists - says many dogs are still being tortured.
Owners of dog meat restaurants support the need for ending cruelty to animals, but see nothing wrong with eating dogs.
"It's my country's own food culture, so South Koreans will continue to eat dog meat no matter what other countries say against it," said Park Seo-ho, the owner of a dog meat restaurant in Sungnam, south of the capital Seoul.
Fifa made its appeal last week, saying it had received thousands of letters from members of the public.
"The World Cup would serve as an appropriate moment for Korea to show the world that it is sensitive to vociferous worldwide public opinion and that it rejects cruelty," Mr Blatter said in a statement.
South Korea and Japan are hosting the 64-match World Cup finals from 31 May to 30 June next year.
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 12:04 PM
i, for one, am thankful for french social and political theory (thank the powers that be for the situationists), french new wave cinema, berurier noir and the new crop of french hc bands, and les bds. vive la france!!
le desordre, c'est moi!
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 12:07 PM
HOLY FRUCK DUCK YOU CAN TYPE !
rofl rofl
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 12:10 PM
Die Seoulstriker! :bash: LOL! :lol:
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 12:14 PM
WOW! calm down Seoulstriker no more ROFL
ok. why don't you chew on a bone? :P
(i'm not talking to you, adam)
Ah so I guess the 8% of the populaiton which is Arab is reposnsible for giving the French such a bad name. Newsflash you frenchie little crack babies: Your so damn worried/discriminatory/racist against your African immigrants but watch the hell out. They arnt the threat, all they care about is making some money for their family. The real threat are the Arabs/muslims. I alread hear that they are failing to embrace Frances culture of assimilation and inclusion. Even in France, the most liberal nation on earth, the damn muslims arnt happy. Already they seperate themselves into different schools, neighborhoods, etc.... What gets me is this: 1. Muslims flee religious oppression of their own country to a more liberal free and tolerent society 2. They live there a few years and are happy and make money. 3. Then, they start to agitate for Sharia holly law and look down upon the society which accepted and nurtured them 4. They start withdrawing from society and forming groups agitating for Muslim rule 5. They start applying whatever laws they wish on themselves, such as honor killings, forcing women to wear veil etc. 6. When liberal democracy's attempt to defend these poor women from Muslim abuse and male domination, they argue that said govnts are anti islamic and agaisnt civil rights and there is no authority other than gods law: sharia 7. Said Muslims begin a holy war against their host country and its peoples, using rape, murder terror etc etc etc. 8. Said Muslims cause govnt to restrict civil liberties etc etc to defend the people from terror and mass killings and civil war. 9. Muslims again flee after they have turned the nice country into a ****hole with an oppresive govnt. They go to a new liberal free democracy and repeat the process. Muslims are the great plague against democracy and equal rights under the law. They and the religion of Islam, spread like a plague across the globe, destroying peoples lives. Just look at the fault lines where Islam is and isnt yet. They are ALL areas of extreme violence. The prophet Mohamed was a rampaging murderer and Islam spreads still today through war and violence. Look at every sinlge predominately Muslim country. They are ALL ****holes where women have either no rights, few rights, or are have some rights but are still restricted to being a second class or a subclass. I dont know about everyone else , but I would rather live under Stalin and Hitler than under The govnts in the Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc. It bothers me that while everyone calls Hitler a evil tyrant and Stalin a madman (which they certainly both were), they ignore that Muslim regimes today all over the world are killing their own citizens by the millions and exporting terrorist violence and uncompromising ideology just as Hitler and Stalin did. In the Sudan for example, the Muslim govnt is waging a war of genocide agaisnt the poor Christians in the south and west which has killed 2 million. In Pakistan, Shiites and Sunni's kill eachother in the tens of thousands. The Saudi's support terror and extermist Wahabi Islam all over the globe. The Iranians support terror agasint Israel and many others. The Syrians do the same. My point: Europe should be more worried and aware that Muslim populations are expanding rapidly and with that expansion will come violence of the most extreme nature. Where there are Muslims, free nations are at risk. Not all Muslims are bad, OF course there are rather secular Muslims just as there are secular religious people of other faiths, but the Imams and their Madrasas easily mold violent students who WILL wage a war of terror agasnt the poeple and govnts of Europe in the near future. BEWARE!!!! By the way, I am not a Christian nor am I a racist. People can take the easy way out by labeling me that and then dismissing me instead of what Im saying. I actually have several moderate Muslim freinds. I also believe radical religion is a threat in general, such a Jerry Falwell types who support Christian nutcasses on the 700 club in the United States. These men are a severe threat to liberty. If they had there way in America, it would already be a theocracy America would be just like Afghanstan, only preaching the bible instead of the Koran. So no, Im not some Christian who hates Islam, But I AM just some dude who see's the threat of religion in general, and Islam specifically, to free liberal democracy.
stephane from Paris
11-05-2003, 12:29 PM
Hey Dubanski
Do you really thinking that our press just use AFP?
Funny again do you know Reuter? All medias uses the same source+their own reporters.
Do you remember the place where a M88 put down a giant statue of sadam? The film (US press) show lots of irakians and when we looked it on tv we hear that thousands of iraki's where here!!
But a warcorrespondant who wasn't under Army control took some photos of this events from other place: It show clearly that there just a few dozens guys on the place!! I don't know how to put the photos but i can scan it for anyone who can show it to everyone!
How can governments and press can manipulate people!!!!
You said that poors in your country have better situation than our? My ex girl friend who lived 2 years in NY didn't agree with your point of view.
Idem for his brother who have a good job in software devellopment and return in France when he need to have an operation (far lower cost for better service here).
I thinks that you live in your ball and don't see the world that is in your own country!
btw never forget that WE know you because we receive your TV Chanels, we read your newspaper on internet like we do sometimes with the press of tons of other countries! You know nothing, you drinks that your medias says and never verify outside.
regards from gay land where girls are so pretty.
stephane
budanski
11-05-2003, 12:55 PM
gay[/b] Paris]Hey Dubanski
Do you really thinking that our press just use AFP?
Funny again do you know Reuter? All medias uses the same source+their own reporters.
*******, Associated Press, etc. all independent and not state owned.
gay[/b] Paris]
Do you remember the place where a M88 put down a giant statue of sadam? The film (US press) show lots of irakians and when we looked it on tv we hear that thousands of iraki's where here!!
But a warcorrespondant who wasn't under Army control took some photos of this events from other place: It show clearly that there just a few dozens guys on the place!! I don't know how to put the photos but i can scan it for anyone who can show it to everyone!
How can governments and press can manipulate people!!!!
Is this what French media is feeding you? I don't see how a conspiracy can go over the heads of independent embedded reporters from over 60 countries.
gay[/b] Paris]You said that poors in your country have better situation than our? My ex girl friend who lived 2 years in NY didn't agree with your point of view.
Idem for his brother who have a good job in software devellopment and return in France when he need to have an operation (far lower cost for better service here).
I thinks that you live in your ball and don't see the world that is in your own country!
hmmm, you're ex-girlfriend living in NY for 2 years... I take it she's not a citizen here in the U.S. so she would'nt get the same benefits as us American citizens. True, she could get "socialised medicine" in say, a county hospital. But those are always managed by city employees who pretty much run things like in any other socialised enviroment. Lets see, we can name the world's top medical facilities most reside here in the states, including the one my wife works for, M.D. Anderson. Which in fact, she speaks a little French to cater to some of your ex-patriots.
The ball I live in is much bigger than yours. How can you judge if you've never been here. I've been to gay Paris twice. Nice country but can't stand why you all don't clean after your dogs on the sidewalk.
gay[/b] Paris]
btw never forget that WE know you because we receive your TV Chanels, we read your newspaper on internet like we do sometimes with the press of tons of other countries! You know nothing, you drinks that your medias says and never verify outside.
regards from gay land where girls are so pretty.
stephane
ditto
Claymore
11-05-2003, 12:56 PM
"Well, i didnt see an Pro- Iraq war rallies in France, so that means their whole country sucks, and so do the people that live there."
Yeah... They didn't find reasonable to support an unprovoked attack against a country which didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and which notorious leader was earlier supported by that attacking country.
snake
11-05-2003, 12:58 PM
As a Proud American and No offense to anyone at all
F*CK France!!!
and to be honest where the girls are not all that pretty
I'm sure present company excluded
I can't wait till France need our help down the line and we screw them at the UN like they did us
I put Germany in the same catagory
I don't believe that countries should just follow along with the US but Germany and France seem to have very short memories
Off my box now
Carry on
Snake
budanski
11-05-2003, 01:05 PM
Yeah... They didn't find reasonable to support an unprovoked attack against a country which didn't have any weapons of mass destruction
WMD was but one reason. not the only reason unless you want to omit Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, and Removing a threat to the region. Should I also remind you that the WMD report was not from the U.S. but from the U.N?
and which notorious leader was earlier supported by that attacking country.
That is called living in the real world. Nothing else but that. The world is not black or white but shades of gray. Nations deal with who and whatever aids their national interests. During WW2 the US and UK became allies with Stalin, and immediately afterwards became enemies in a 40+yr Cold War.
It is called doing what benefits the nation the most during a specific time. Choose to defeat the greatest danger and influence if possible the lesser. The US and all nations throughout the history of mankind does not.
It is naive and foolish to believe otherwise.
HOLY FRUCK DUCK YOU CAN TYPE !
rofl rofl
Mayhem_Dog-Soldier's been liquidated.
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 01:20 PM
budanski, again you refer to "state-owned media". public broadcasting in france, as it is many countries, is not state-owned: they are funded through the state but are autonomous and independent. in the case of france, i suggest you have a look at the legislation that governs broadcasting, particularly article 1 of the Loi relative à la liberté de communication (Loi Léotard, 1986).
your argument is without merit because you are essentially insinuating that the media in france are merely reiterating state policy. even if this was the case (which it isn't, do the research), how would this be different than a privately-owned media outlet whose financial revenues are derived from corporate sources? in other words, according to what i perceive is your argument, it would be logical to conclude that private media merely reiterate the views of the corporations that fund them, right?
once more, i suggest you do some research before discussing the issue of media ownership and programming.
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 01:37 PM
budanski wrote:
WMD was but one reason. not the only reason unless you want to omit Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, and Removing a threat to the region. Should I also remind you that the WMD report was not from the U.S. but from the U.N?
you are right to a certain extent. however, the case for war was sold on the basis that iraq was an imminent threat to american national security. how many times did the current administration use the same keywords "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" to convince the american public that military intervention was necessary? i do not believe the american public would have been as supportive for military action had the other factors justifying intervention been thrust to the forefront. do you think that the average american would have supported sending young men and women to iraq, spending tens of billions of dollars, on the basis that saddam's regime had consistently violated unsc resolutions? or that iraqis should be liberated? i hope this could be the case, but somehow i doubt it.
the new yorker magazine recently ran a great article on the process of "stovepiping" intelligence that characterised the current administration's handling of the matter. this is one of many such articles:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
you can dismiss this as another example of "liberal" propaganda, yet unless you can provide proof to counter the information provided, your claims are meritless. in addition, seymour hersh is an icon of american journalism, so his work is of the highest quality.[/quote]
budanski
11-05-2003, 01:39 PM
Under French law it is a criminal offence to insult the president, carrying a fine of up to 45,000 euros (£30,000).
The french press is barred from criticizing any member of government. This is also true in Germany, where a reporter was sued for reporting that Schroeder dyed his hair.
That's not a 'free' press.
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 01:57 PM
Under French law it is a criminal offence to insult the president, carrying a fine of up to 45,000 euros (£30,000).
The french press is barred from criticizing any member of government. This is also true in Germany, where a reporter was sued for reporting that Schroeder dyed his hair.
That's not a 'free' press.
if you can't or won't provide at least on example of these so-called restrictions, why bother even posting? you make serious allegations which are not supported by fact.
i'm not saying france has a perfect record, no country does. there have been problems, sometimes serious, but there is no systemic, institutionalised violation of the press' freedom. again, i point to the legislation.
and since you are apparently an expert in everything, why don't explain to us what constitutues a "free press"? private media funded by corporate dollars? it is quite evident you are simply shooting your mouth off (or, in this case, your fingers) for your posts do not demonstrate any genuine understanding of "media".
hair dye - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1926093.stm
from vigilant.tv:
Under France's antiquated press law, it is forbidden to insult the French president or foreign heads of state. The law has been on the books, with few changes, since 1881; it's the same one Emile Zola defied when he published J'accuse to defend Captain Dreyfus at the end of the 19th century. No one has been arrested for insulting the president here since the 1960s, when a parade spectator was briefly jailed after booing Charles de Gaulle. But the far-reaching code remains on the books, and its pernicious effect has extended well beyond France's borders.
pinkeye
11-05-2003, 02:29 PM
hair dye - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1926093.stm
from vigilant.tv:
Under France's antiquated press law, it is forbidden to insult the French president or foreign heads of state. The law has been on the books, with few changes, since 1881; it's the same one Emile Zola defied when he published J'accuse to defend Captain Dreyfus at the end of the 19th century. No one has been arrested for insulting the president here since the 1960s, when a parade spectator was briefly jailed after booing Charles de Gaulle. But the far-reaching code remains on the books, and its pernicious effect has extended well beyond France's borders.
thanks hood. as i pointed out, france, like all countries, is not perfect. though the code remains in the books, it has not been enforced. many countries, including the u.s., france, britain, and canada, have antiquated laws that need to be revised. or in some cases, regressive legislation is introduced.
budanski claims that the french press is "state-owned" and thus exempt from freely reporting "news and information". the examples included are somehow to be taken as proof that freedom of the press is non-existent in france. this is clearly not the case. the legislation that governs french media guarantees freedom of the press.
i would point out that france, for example, was ranked 11th in terms of the freedom of the press by reporters sans frontieres. the rankings were determined by asking journalists, researchers, and legal experts a number of questions (50). here is the link:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116
Seoulstriker
11-05-2003, 02:32 PM
hair dye - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1926093.stm
from vigilant.tv:
Under France's antiquated press law, it is forbidden to insult the French president or foreign heads of state. The law has been on the books, with few changes, since 1881; it's the same one Emile Zola defied when he published J'accuse to defend Captain Dreyfus at the end of the 19th century. No one has been arrested for insulting the president here since the 1960s, when a parade spectator was briefly jailed after booing Charles de Gaulle. But the far-reaching code remains on the books, and its pernicious effect has extended well beyond France's borders.
chirac can suck my chode.
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
If that makes us 17th, then I'm glad. The fact that Novak who outted the CIA operative a month or so ago hasn't been pressured to reveal his source shows that such things aren't always the case.
Claymore
11-05-2003, 03:06 PM
WMD was but one reason. not the only reason unless you want to omit Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince, and Removing a threat to the region. Should I also remind you that the WMD report was not from the U.S. but from the U.N?
You find UNSC resolutions important. Did USA get approval for use of force in Iraq from UN? No....they did not. Is that acceptable? No...it is not.
The whole thing is same battle for black gold than what Iraq did in Kuwait. The diffirence is that United States of America is a superpower.
It is called doing what benefits the nation the most during a specific time. Choose to defeat the greatest danger and influence if possible the lesser. The US and all nations throughout the history of mankind does not.
It is naive and foolish to believe otherwise.
I agree. Unfortunately people never change. No matter if leaders come from little tyranny or civilized superpower.
At least you are honest and don't even try to explain it with "Saddam has a bad regime/We have to free oppressed Iraqi people" fairytale.
No...don't get me wrong. Mr. Saddam is/was a ****head who has to take the consequences from his acts.
budanski
11-05-2003, 03:55 PM
Sorry for the late response seeing that I don't have the luxury to sit here all day like some of you. Us capitalists have work to do.
you are right to a certain extent. however, the case for war was sold on the basis that iraq was an imminent threat to american national security. how many times did the current administration use the same keywords "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" to convince the american public that military intervention was necessary? i do not believe the american public would have been as supportive for military action had the other factors justifying intervention been thrust to the forefront. do you think that the average american would have supported sending young men and women to iraq, spending tens of billions of dollars, on the basis that saddam's regime had consistently violated unsc resolutions? or that iraqis should be liberated? i hope this could be the case, but somehow i doubt it.
the new yorker magazine recently ran a great article on the process of "stovepiping" intelligence that characterised the current administration's handling of the matter. this is one of many such articles:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
you can dismiss this as another example of "liberal" propaganda, yet unless you can provide proof to counter the information provided, your claims are meritless. in addition, seymour hersh is an icon of american journalism, so his work is of the highest quality.
WMDs were one of many reasons listed for the liberation of Iraq. Only the very foolish would claim otherwise.
Bush emphatically denied that the threat was imminent, but that if we waited until the threat was imminent, it would be too late. Please show me otherwise http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
if you can't or won't provide at least on example of these so-called restrictions, why bother even posting? you make serious allegations which are not supported by fact.
i'm not saying france has a perfect record, no country does. there have been problems, sometimes serious, but there is no systemic, institutionalised violation of the press' freedom. again, i point to the legislation.
and since you are apparently an expert in everything, why don't explain to us what constitutues a "free press"? private media funded by corporate dollars? it is quite evident you are simply shooting your mouth off (or, in this case, your fingers) for your posts do not demonstrate any genuine understanding of "media".
Thanks for getting my back Hood.
Schroeder hopes for good hair day (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/12/germany.schroeder/)
Banned In France (http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB1046731019913263600,00.html)
You find UNSC resolutions important. Did USA get approval for use of force in Iraq from UN? No....they did not. Is that acceptable? No...it is not.
The U.S. was acting within the provisions of UN Resolution 1441, which was the culmination of more than a dozen such resolutions on the topic.
Under international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US has a legal right to anticpatory self-defense.
UN document(res 1441) that lists all the Security Council Resolutions with which Iraq was out of compliance. Resolution 678 was of most importance. The UN's failure to enforce 678 put the US and other nations in danger.
I've stated these points before and will still repeat, that the US's rights to self-defense is now being tried in the court of public opinion.
The whole thing is same battle for black gold than what Iraq did in Kuwait.
Why don't you update your liberal talking points. This war for oil is old. If the war was really for oil, wouldnt you think it would've been cheaper to just lift the sanctions and deal with Saddam directly? You don't think the U.S. can buy this oil if really wanted to? Your conspiracy theories of it all being for oil is just as played out as Doucebag19's posts. The U.S. doesnt work that way. Doesnt have to.
He219
11-05-2003, 04:13 PM
budanski, public broadcasters in europe are autonomous and independent from the state, as is the cbc in canada and the abc in australia, for example. legislation guarantees freedom of the press. in addition, since public broadcasters obtain the majority of their funding from parliamentary appropriations and/or licensing fees, they are not subjected to the same degree to the whims of the private sector. furthermore, the mandate of public broadcasters is radically different from that of private broadcasters, i.e., the public good vs. profit. i suggest you check out the corporate websites of numerous public broadcasters before discussing freedom of the press.
Hey guys, girls and Froggies! Sorry I'm late for the show today! My apologies.
I say the US has more of a choice for TV viewing than any other place in the world, other than those with access to our networks. The opinions and views are broad and not state sponsored, as they are in Europe.
Don't you guys have to pay a radio/TV TAX just for listening or viewing to your news. That seems hardly independent. Give me a break if you think it is about commercials. Cable TV costs, and has just as many commercials as the Networks. The TAXES you pay to the State gives the ultimate editorial discretionary control for the information broadcast - TO THE STATE, NO?
:D
Claymore
11-05-2003, 04:52 PM
The U.S. was acting within the provisions of UN Resolution 1441, which was the culmination of more than a dozen such resolutions on the topic.
UN Resolution 1441 was made by US and UK for their own needs and it was adopted by UN Security Council. It talks about "serious consequences" if Iraq doesn't comply the terms. "Serious consequences" are not literally same thing than use of military power.
US did never get acceptance of use of force from UN.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm
Under international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US has a legal right to anticpatory self-defense.
Taken from Article 51:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security."
There is NOTHING about preventive attack.
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm
UN document(res 1441) that lists all the Security Council Resolutions with which Iraq was out of compliance. Resolution 678 was of most importance. The UN's failure to enforce 678 put the US and other nations in danger.
Resolutions 678 and 660 are made in 1990 and are about the time BEFORE Op Desert Storm.
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/28/IMG/NR057528.pdf?OpenElement
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/10/IMG/NR057510.pdf?OpenElement
The question is not any more to know if the USA were right to make this war in Iraq. The question is rather to know has which price they will gain it. It is not no doubts now that the US forces are not more effective in a conflict of the type "guerilla" and unfortunately the killed US soldiers the every day proves it.
Let us wish that this time the USA finish the work which they began (not as in 1991).
But this time the price has to pay in human lives will be much more important and I am not on the majority of the US people accepts it.
Claymore
11-05-2003, 05:07 PM
Why don't you update your liberal talking points.
Is this the moment you're loosing your temper and start calling me names? Does that help you to convince me and others?
This war for oil is old
The reality isn't "old".
You don't think the U.S. can buy this oil if really wanted to?
Yes, of course you have enough $$$ for that. But what if the arab countries suddenly refuse to sell? US can't take the risk. You have to ensure your vital oil, position as a greatest country of the world ever and the american way of life.
Your conspiracy theories of it all being for oil is just as played out as Doucebag19's posts. The U.S. doesnt work that way. Doesnt have to.
It's not just a conspiracy theory....it's the fact.
Like you said, "It is naive and foolish to believe otherwise." And yes....US works that way and it has to.
He219
11-05-2003, 05:29 PM
The question is not any more to know if the USA were right to make this war in Iraq. The question is rather to know has which price they will gain it. It is not no doubts now that the US forces are not more effective in a conflict of the type "guerilla" and unfortunately the killed US soldiers the every day proves it.
Let us wish that this time the USA finish the work which they began (not as in 1991).
But this time the price has to pay in human lives will be much more important and I am not on the majority of the US people accepts it.
Interesting. Fist you say the US is unilateral in attacking Iraq now, and then you write about finishing the work the UN-coalition began in 1991! Fool. We are finishing the job right now, over your objections.
It is self evedent that the French peoples liked Saddam and defend his regieme over the objections and actions of the United States. You hope that we have a difficult time in rebuilding Iraq so that you can gloat in your self-belief that the France-Saddam relationship was an honorable one. We know what side you are on. That is absolutely clear to see.
:|
You know nothing, you drinks that your medias says and never verify outside.
regards from gay land where girls are so pretty.
stephane
Really? Aren't you a bit shure of yourself now...
budanski
11-05-2003, 05:37 PM
UN Resolution 1441 was made by US and UK for their own needs and it was adopted by UN Security Council. It talks about "serious consequences" if Iraq doesn't comply the terms. "Serious consequences" are not literally same thing than use of military power.
US did never get acceptance of use of force from UN.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm
Taken from Article 51:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security."
There is NOTHING about preventive attack.
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm
Resolutions 678 and 660 are made in 1990 and are about the time BEFORE Op Desert Storm.
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/28/IMG/NR057528.pdf?OpenElement
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/10/IMG/NR057510.pdf?OpenElement
1441 recalls that a ceasefire would be based on the acceptance of UNSC 687 (1991) and that Iraq has been warned of "serious consequences".
All nations who joined the UN have yielded their right to wage war to situations of self-defense and to situation in which the UN security council asks for military means. "Self-defense" is defined as a response to military action and can be preventive to counter an immediate threat of military invasion.
It requires member nations to refrain from military action however it does not prohibit it. The actions by the US and the coalition by definition is both legal and valid.
The UN resolution terminating hostilites of Operation Desert Storm was effective only if Iraq honored its ceasefire agreements and the wishes of the UNSC. Since it was quite obvious that Iraq failed to live up to the ceasefire agreements it did not effectively end hostilites. The choice of not continuing hostilities was up to the coalition. For the record the 11 years of an imposed no fly zone on Iraq and Iraq's targeting of coaliton aircraft and attempted shoot down of coalition aircraft was a clear sign that hostilites never fully ceased. This is but one example.
Resolution 687 article 32 which states:
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
Which clearly Iraq violated and failed to adhere.
Article 34 states that:
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
It states that further steps to secure the peace and security of the area maybe required, it states further steps maybe necessary.
California Joe
11-05-2003, 05:38 PM
Budanski is like some kind of relentless terminator monkey.
budanski
11-05-2003, 05:52 PM
Is this the moment you're loosing your temper and start calling me names? Does that help you to convince me and others?
If I lost my temper, I would've just posted this...
http://www.hosstyle.com/images/eric.jpg
FYI. I've notice everyone spelling the word lose with two o's, what gives? just an observation of late
Yes, of course you have enough $$$ for that. But what if the arab countries suddenly refuse to sell? US can't take the risk. You have to ensure your vital oil, position as a greatest country of the world ever and the american way of life.
Ever done any research to see where the U.S. gets most of its oil? Its not the Middle East. Canada (biggest oil exporter to U.S. last year), Venezuela (ranking 3rd) and Mexico (ranking 4th) export more oil to the U.S. then Gulf countries.
You've mistaken the US with the EU.
It's not just a conspiracy theory....it's the fact.
Like you said, "It is naive and foolish to believe otherwise." And yes....US works that way and it has to.
Care to share some official documents to that?
Personally I do not drive myself Iraqis badly and of what can their arrive well.
The Iraqis in general do not like the USA.How will you make to finish work?
You hope that we have a difficult time in rebuilding Iraq
Not they is false, I note it...
budanski
11-05-2003, 06:40 PM
Personally I do not drive myself Iraqis badly and of what can their arrive well.
The Iraqis in general do not like the USA.How will you make to finish work?
You hope that we have a difficult time in rebuilding Iraq
Not they is false, I note it...
English in Stupidistan is well, really stupid.
WashingtonTimes: Most in Baghdad wants U.S. to stay (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031014-114236-3725r.htm)
Two-third Iraqis want troops to stay: Poll (http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Usiraqconfrontation&slug=Two-third+Iraqis+want+troops+to+stay%3A+Poll&id=43700&callid=1)
83% of Iraqis want American troops to stay (http://gandalf.ics.uci.edu/blog/2003/06/83_of_iraqis_want_american_troops_to_stay.html)
Poll: Most in Baghdad want troops to stay (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-14-baghdad-poll_x.htm)
What wants Iraqi it is that the US forces leave their territories as soon as possible, it is also what the US soldiers want , on this point at least they agree.
And especially what the Iraqis want, it is to be to direct by a Iraqi government .
He219
11-05-2003, 07:10 PM
What wants Iraqi it is that the US forces leave their territories as soon as possible, it is also what the US soldiers want , on this point at least they agree.
And especially what the Iraqis want, it is to be to direct by a Iraqi government .
As soon as feasible; certainly. Once order is restored, Saddam is captured or killed and a moderate system of government is established and able to maintain order by themselves.
What you want is for Saddam to be able to take advantage of a US withdrawl to regain power and buy French arms and sell the French oil.
Don't think you know what the US soldier wants... :cantbeli:
They want to win the war and the peace. They will also do what they are ordered to do. When the mission is complete they will return. This is what they want in order to return to their loved ones.
First you have to build a functioning government to be able to do what the French would like, smartypants.
:roll:
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 07:13 PM
What you want is for Saddam to be able to take advantage of a US withdrawl to regain power and buy French arms and sell the French oil.
Don't think you know what the french wants...
He219
11-05-2003, 07:14 PM
Yet you say, leave immediately.
No?
;)
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 07:15 PM
No ;)
budanski
11-05-2003, 07:17 PM
Don't think you know what the french wants...
I can tell you what the french needs.. ;)
http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/26277/200.jpg
He219
11-05-2003, 07:20 PM
Then we must agree that...
1) order must be established and eventually maintained by the Iraqis
2) Saddam must be caught or killed
3) An effective representative government must be created
4) All Iraqi ethnic groups must be equally represented in this new gvt.
...for the United States to withdraw as an occupation force. Naturally we will maintain a presence in Iraq thereafter, as in Germany and Japan.
Yes?
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 07:20 PM
Yes, here we've come back in good humour ;)
Thanks Budanski, finally you make my day with a smile.
Don't misunderstood on french intention, we're not bad guys. That's all.
Yes, I know, you will say that in all case we aren't dangerous ;)
Miles Teg
11-05-2003, 07:23 PM
1) order must be established and eventually maintained by the Iraqis
2) Saddam must be cought or killed
3) An effective representative government must be created
4) All Iraqi ethnic groups must be equally represented in this new gvt.
Yes, the last disaccord about this with the UN was about the time of establishing new gvt, a little bit too long. But I will give the advice to take your time, make it good is more important.
and for the point 2 I will prefer the capture option and judgement in Lahaie, like Milosevich.
That made three already report on the US soldiers that I see, and I am really sorry to say to you that what I saw does not correspond has what you say to me... Finally I agree with you, the US forces should leave only when the mission are finished.
Hey Budanski... in any case me I know that which you need... a brain.
He219
11-05-2003, 08:35 PM
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/french_security.png
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/chirac_putin_schroeder_stooges.jpg
:lol:
see has this page... and it is not an assembly photographs. Not easy to have simple spirit for president...
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=56440&highlight=#56440
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.