Cool new quote I found ...

peterchen

Repost X|

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Lost User

KaЯl wrote: A nice demonstration of the global ignorance promoted as the truth spreading through the US. Most Americans understand it is only a stupid e-mail, apparently the French do not. Who exactly are the "ignorant" ones? Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

KaRl · Times change, politicians don't. **- Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003**

Mike Mullikin wrote: Who exactly are the "ignorant" ones? The ones who wrote such silliness and the ones who promote it. Thanks to your answer, I can now hope it's not a majority in your country :rose: Mike Mullikin wrote: Most Americans understand it is only a stupid e-mail, apparently the French do not The current mediatic campaign against France in the US media has had strongs repercussions in the french media. I suppose a lot of us were and are offended because of all the insults and false accusations we've seen and read. But AFAIK, it didn't create, or reinforce, an anti-american feeling, but much more a greater rejection of the bushist theories. I think we are still able to make the difference.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael P Butler

I agree that the French really didn't have much choice but to surrender. The German Blizkrieg tactics made it pretty much impossible to do much about it. Even the British forces were forced all the way back to Dunkirk. I suppose the modern day version of the French surrender under impossible odds was the 1991 Iraq conflict. One side was far superior to the other and so surrender was the only option. So maybe I am wrong to knock the French army - but it is a good source of humour. :-D Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879

Doug Goulden

You guys need to get a sense of humor.... And secondly, why would Jaques Chirac reject the proposed UN resolution before Saddam even gets a chance to? I think that the French government is going to be looking pretty bad when the involvement of France in Iraqs weapon programs is involved. Will you be as quick to defend your government when you find that they were involved with Saddam in opposition to UN resolutions? Just food for thought. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

peterchen wrote: can you people please stop bashing the french army? They really don't deserve it you know But the French do .... ;P Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: You guys need to get a sense of humor If I say you're a monkey, a coward and a traitor, will you laugh at it? I generally enjoy anglo-saxon humour, but this time I don't get it. Doug Goulden wrote: And secondly, why would Jaques Chirac reject the proposed UN resolution before Saddam even gets a chance to So, it's a proof France thinks by itself and doesn't follow SH, doesn't it? You have the same boolean position than the US administration, others can be only be vassals or enemies. Doug Goulden wrote: I think that the French government is going to be looking pretty bad when the involvement of France in Iraqs weapon programs is involved Does "when" have the same signification as "if" in this sentence? Doug Goulden wrote: Will you be as quick to defend your government when you find that they were involved with Saddam in opposition to UN resolutions I don't defend my government, I try to explain its position too often deformed by the media. note: it's weird, your fan club hasn't voted yet ;)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: So, it's a proof France thinks by itself and doesn't follow SH, doesn't it? It shows that France leads SH. IMHO if Chiraq would have been forceful in helping to present the need for SH to disarm NOW instead of spending so much time trying to assert his independence it would have made it much more likely that SH would have complied quickly and completely. Instead the Security council looks indecisive and weak, unable to summon the resolve to back its own resolution. Hw had no need to comply because he knew that the UN would not back up their words with actions. He didn't think the US and the UK would back up their words. KaЯl wrote: note: it's weird, your fan club hasn't voted yet They all know one American can handle any number of French people by themselves;);P:laugh: KaЯl wrote: You have the same boolean position than the US administration, others can be only be vassals or enemies Not true, I defend the right of others to have their own opinions and beliefs. However, when someone obviously opposes something for their own personal gain(Chiraq) and is willing to endanger others, I hold them in contempt. You (and most of the people in the anti-war crowd) do neither. You don't endanger anyone with your actions, and you don't believe th way you do based on some personal gain. So even if we diagree, that has nothing to do with your character or the type of person you are.:rose: KaЯl wrote: Does "when" have the same signification as "if" in this sentence Well lets put it this way, if the Iraqi's haven't been supported by French companies, and don't have WMD, I will apologize loud and clear to you on Codeproject. On the other hand, if reports show French companies where helping SH and he has chemical and biological weapons, I would really appreciate you admitting that Chiraq was foolish in not believing the US and you were wrong. I don't think I'm going o have a lot of typing to do, but we'll see. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: He didn't think the US and the UK would back up their words. That's true, and he changed his mind, when the Us threatened of a military ripost. He's now answering UN inspectors requests, and for the moment they can do their job. As soon as they won't be able to do it, ans saying they can't do it, then the war will be the last solution, but not before. Doug Goulden wrote: They all know one American can handle any number of French people by themselves some french perhaps, but handle me, I'm not that sure :-D Doug Goulden wrote: However, when someone obviously opposes something for their own personal gain(Chiraq) and is willing to endanger others Obviously :wtf::omg:?! I agree you may have this feeling, but you haven't be able to demonstrate it for now. Doug Goulden wrote: if the Iraqi's haven't been supported by French companies You have to give a limitation date, because every western country made business with SH before 1991, as yours as mine. Doug Goulden wrote: I would really appreciate you admitting that Chiraq was foolish in not believing the US and you were wrong If you want examples where Chirac was foolish, I can give you hundreds, he and I are on opposite political sides :) Does Irak has WMD? Probably. (JC (jacques chirac, not Jesus Christ) even said it on TV last week). Are they a threat as long as the inspectors work? I don't think so. Do they become a threat if US invade Iraq? Yes, definitively.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: That's true, and he changed his mind, when the Us threatened of a military ripost The American people aren't willing to carry the burden of having 255,000 troops stationed in the Gulf. For that matter the continued presence of troops in the Gulf has in general caused us more harm than good. Look at UBL. I have friends there even now. The bottom line is that the only real way for the UN Security Council to have maintained credibility was for them to have enforced the 17 resolutions they have made. As I see it the UN is ineffective except as a humanitarian aid organization. They were unable to agree on acting in Kosovo and have done little to help prevent war in many places around the world. Its regrettable but the US would probably do better to be guided by it concience and work to get others to help in the situations where it must regardless of the UN position. I have an uncle who suggests that having the UN leave New York would accomplish 2 hings. Better parking in NYC and secondly provide room for housing people who ar homeless. He could be right. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: The bottom line is that the only real way for the UN Security Council to have maintained credibility was for them to have enforced the 17 resolutions they have made Ok, I agree. And let's do the same with all the resolutions concerning Israel. The first one I remember is the resolution 242. Doug Goulden wrote: He could be right. How many people work for the UN in NYC? I however agree, UN should be in Geneva.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: The first one I remember is the resolution 242 I have no problem with that, but what does that have to do with Iraq? Maybe your mad 'cause they bombed that French made reactor in Iraq back in 81....;P KaЯl wrote: UN should be in Geneva Good then Europe can help pay for it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: I have no problem with that, but what does that have to do with Iraq Some could say that Justice is not the same for all, and believe it's deeply unfair. Doug Goulden wrote: Maybe your mad 'cause they bombed that French made reactor in Iraq back in 81 And they did well! Note also that as the beginning of the eighties France understood the deadly mistake it did and refused to sell a second generator. Doug Goulden wrote: Good then Europe can help pay for it. And have the jobs.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Some could say that Justice is not the same for all, and believe it's deeply unfair. I would agree that the Israelis have done a lot of things that the UN doesn't agree with, but surely you aren't equating the Israeli government with a despot who would kill 5000 Kurds with gas? Not to mention the gas he used on Iran... or what about the need habit they have of cutting the tongue out of anyone who speaks out against Saddam. Israel and SH aren't even close to the same thing. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: you aren't equating the Israeli government with a despot Of course, I'm not. I'm not that sure however Sharon is not a war criminal (Lebanon 82), and I will wait either for a trial to make my opinion or either 50 years, the time needed to historians to work.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Of course, I'm not. I'm not that sure however Sharon is not a war criminal (Lebanon 82), and I will wait either for a trial to make my opinion or either 50 years, the time needed to historians to work I can agree with all of that. Sharon was the best and wort thing that could have happened to Arafat. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?