Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ouaibe on November 25, 2003, 03:03:14 PM
-
Don't know this newspaper but i thought it would be a nice refresh on those past 9 months of french xenophobia.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm)
-
Were they right to continue to sell weapons to Iraq after Gulf War I?
-
Are you implying that any country in the world uses some kind of ethical basis to decide on weapons sales?
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Don't know this newspaper but i thought it would be a nice refresh on those past 9 months of french xenophobia.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm)
//A que mode Johny ON
Alllllllluuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmm mmmeeeeeeeeeeer le feu
ll suffira d'une étincelle
D'un rien, d'un geste
Il suffira d'une étincelle,
Et d'un mot d'amour
Pour
Allumer le feu
Allumer le feu
Et faire danser les diables et les dieux
Allumer le feu
Allumer le feu
Et voir grandir la flamme dans vos yeux
Allumer le feu
//A que mode Johny OFF
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Straffo, mheu non ;))
-
Here we go......
Where to start...
Grun?
Yeager?
Shall we call roll now?
My president told me the war in Iraq would be a long, drawn out effort with many casualties along the way.
I'd very much like to see the polls where the "Majority" or Iraqis would prefer the United States leave now.
Regardless, we're there now. We're fighting terrorism with soldiers and not ambassadors for a change. We're fighting them in the deserts of Iraq, instead of the streets of New York City.
We've freed an entire country from the bloody grip of a murderous tyrant. Would you have us put him back?
We've not found and WMD's yet, and we may never. IIRC correctly, this was one of 4 reasons we invaded Iraq and not the sole reason.
Most importantly, though, we've sent a message. If you harbor terrorism, or sponsor it, you will face our wrath.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Straffo, mheu non ;))
ben merdre alors ... c'est pas un mot d'amour ?
:lol
-
it-ay is-ay vious-obay ance-fray isn't-ay biased-unay ere-whay raq-Iay is-ay oncerned-cay.
-
Heh, thats one chirac fanboi article.
the french were right about the difficulties of occupation.. and even the us admitted it would be hard even before the shooting began.. but the article cites that the french and chirac personally have 'more experience' in those matters... which in itself is laughable when you consider the us has had more experience occupying foreign nations for decades at a time in modern times... something France has been on the receiving end in the past century.
Still, an amusing read.. and of course, no highlights whatsoever as to what action the French gov. was suggesting as an alternative (besides more talk and sanctions, which apparently they failed to notice hadn't worked for... oh, a decade? heh).
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Were they right to continue to sell weapons to Iraq after Gulf War I?
Post proofs.
And not the Roland 3 affair that was a hoax, nor the F1 spare parts that was a hoax, not the propellant stuff for the iraqi missiles that was prooved to be an hoax too.
Thank you, have a nice day.
which in itself is laughable when you consider the us has had more experience occupying foreign nations for decades at a time in modern times... something France has been on the receiving end in the past century.
OIO, go read books, and post when you'll be educated, thanks, have a nice day too!:rofl
-
France surrendered to Saddam a long time ago, it's no wonder they were so in awe of him and still are..
-
Are we being invaded?
WTF?
Is HTC running a marketing campaign in France we don't know about?
I love the way the get all superior and start speaking in French. Too bad that language is only useful in France, Quebec, and crappy restaurants.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
France surrendered to Saddam a long time ago, it's no wonder they were so in awe of him and still are..
Where the hell ya been, Grun?
It's me against 4 Froggies here! ;)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Where the hell ya been, Grun?
It's me against 4 Froggies here! ;)
Call in some fire support will ya? We need Rude, Yeager, Lazs and Toad.:D Oh, and Tumor...don't forget him.
-
Here is a random wall of French text from the Web. Ha, now we too can have french language arrogance - and read about some fine insurance products of the AXA company!
Le Groupe AXA est présent sur tous les continents et compte 88.000 collaborateurs et 26.500 agents à travers le monde. Les activités d’assurance d’AXA regroupent l’assurance vie (contrats de prévoyance, d’épargne et de retraite) et l’assurance dommages. Les principaux canaux de distribution utilisés par AXA pour ses produits d’assurance sont les agents, les réseaux spécialisés, les courtiers et la vente directe.
AXA exerce également des activités internationales comme la réassurance, l’assistance et les grands risques. Les activités de services financiers reposent principalement sur la gestion d’actifs pour le compte des sociétés d’assurance du Groupe et pour le compte de tiers.
Le Groupe est coté à la bourse de Paris et de New York. Plusieurs sociétés du Groupe sont également cotées sur leur propre marché : Sidney, Hong Kong, Londres, Francfort et New York.
Le Groupe AXA est présent en Chine avec des bureaux de représentation à Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Chengdu et Dalian. En 1999, le Groupe a créé une joint venture en assurance vie à Shanghai avec China Minmetals Group : AXA-MINMETALS Assurance Co. Ltd.
-
Yeah,
The war with Iraq - If Saddam did harbor WMD and was a credible threat then we were right to take him down. So far no proof as of yet, nor much to say he was harboring Terrorist on a mass scale.
Originally posted by: Muck
Most importantly, though, we've sent a message. If you harbor terrorism, or sponsor it, you will face our wrath.
I disagree with this. If we were going after all harborers of terrorism we'd be hitting Iran, Syria and Somalia because they are harboring terrorism as much as Saddam was. All we did was make them change countries and drive them further under ground.
I agree we had to dismantle the Taliban in Afganistan. They far and away promoted more terrorism than the aforementioned.
So why am I pissed about Iraq -
1. Bush lied and our boys are dieing for his war. We are no safer because of Iraq than we were 9-11-1. But he and his cronies are much richer.
2. Has anyone tried to buy a sheet of plywood lately. Wonder why it has become so expensive? Because of all the materials being sent over to rebuild Iraq. Building materials are 30% more expensive and it is directly contributable to Iraq. Have we seen oil prices drop? Nope! Not to mention the every day costs of fighting a continuing war. Our children's children will be paying for this one long after we are gone.
3. Doesn't it make you sick to know that companies like Hal Burton (Dick Cheny's) is going to make Billions rebuilding Iraq. Not to mention others ie. Bush Senior's. Makes the lack of WMDs and real terrorism threat very fishy.
4. The French and Germans should be pissed they were making money on a corrupt dictator and that has stopped because we decided we should occupy Iraq under the guise of terroism. If Iraq was such a threat Why didn't Bush Senior take him down the first time. I am not saying that the Germans and French were right but they are no more wrong than we are trading with China.
So Bush fked us were in, So I Say we must support our boys and finish the job. But I am potato peelin pissed about it. The only message we sent is if we can exploit you under the guise of terrorism we will. I feel sorry for the guys out there getting slaughtered every day. What are they really fighting for, besides thier life.
-
Disagree Mars...
1) Bush did not lie. Clinton Lied. I believe Bush was misinformed and though the buck stops with him, did not intentionally lie. If he had such a lack of integrity, why not just plant the WMD's in Iraq and say "Hey, I told you"? And don't tell me we can't make that happen.
3) Your telling me a guy who's worth a fortune needs to commit political suicide to drive his stock price up another 10%? Come on. There are plenty of more lucritive ways to be on the take as president, and much more discreet.
Should we go after Iran, Syria and Somalia? Sure, but let's take this one at a time. Notice how Syria and Iran have fallen into line since Iraq? There is cooperation that never existed before. Perhaps we don't need to fight everyone who harbors a terrorist. Perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan were the examples we needed to set.
-
So you are saying a multimillionaire with enormous power and ability to affect the economy (he is president of USA) would find starting a war the best way to enrich his friends?
This is about as intelligeng an argument as the post 911 conspiracies that bush alloewd the WTC attacks to occur so he could enrich (somehow...) his evil oil industry buddies. Yea I bet the oil industry simply loved the drop in demand for oil( airline indutry near collapse and less car travel due to terror fear) and higher crude prices (you see the evil oil companies need to buy the stuff - if crude costs a bunch more they gotta charge more at pump - and a higher price at pump means people buy less gas which means less sales and less profit for the evil oil companes) and mid east instability ( where the oil is, doh) on account of 911. They were rolling in dough after 911, best thing ever for the oil biz! :rolleyes:
Some of you Bush haters are plain stupid, no other words describe you better - so again let me say...
[SIZE=20]PLAIN STUPID [/SIZE]
Or is it that you expect most people are so stupid to belive you?
-
If I was French I'd be feeling pretty chuffed about the fact that they do appear to have been correct in their assessment of the Iraqi situation.
I for one was highly critical of the French in the lead-up to the invasion.
Crow doesn't taste very good, but I'll eat it when I deserve to.
-
I'd like to know how many of you have read the article to the end.
I havn't done a comment nor will do one. I don't think this article or type of post will change your mind as i haven't change mine reading your post / sources.
I was just happy to find a different way to analyse the situation and wanted to share it with you.
Now fight as long as you want, it won't change a damn thing of what happens down there, i'm pretty sure that no one from the 'White House' nor the 'Elysée' had, have read this board...
[Edited for spelling]
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
France surrendered to Saddam a long time ago, it's no wonder they were so in awe of him and still are..
Actually my offhand sarcastic remark wasnt that far off the mark - the whole article is based on the French defeat (was there every doubt about this being part of it) in Algeria. You see the French were trying to opress, terrorize and subjegate an entire poulation - natually (as with most things french) they failed. Curiously they did this in the 1960s after supposedly suffering the horrors of ww2 and ww1 and having learned that war is bad ans immoral.
So no the French arent right, they may have got their butts handed to them in Algeria bbut we arent trying to supress the iraqi people or colonize their country. Unlike the French in algeria who were racist imperialists bent on domination we are simply coming in and deposing a hated murdering despot. The resisatance is from the usual terorists and saddam loyalits who now have turened again to their hobby of murdeing iraqi innocents and terrorizing patritic iraqis who wish to rebuild their nation with US help.
So no as usual the french are wrong, they operated in algeria as imperialist subjegators and they made a polular revol agains them. In Iraq there is no such thing - its just saddam fanatics and islamic terorists.
So Curval dont be taken in with this idiotic french propaganda, spit out that crap in your mouth and stand proud,
-
(http://www.gavle.to/~stephan.dubois/the_sign.jpg)
%¤# Frogs...
-
LOL I was gonna say something about surrendering, but I thought better of it. This quote from that article speaks for itself:
"In their first stab at constructing a policy to deal with the strange new threat of Islamic terrorism, the French adopted a policy of appeasement -- an approach that included tacit permission for globally oriented terrorist groups to use French soil as a base, so long as the groups did not make France itself a target."
-
Yeaa GScholz ever the eager french apologist...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL I was gonna say something about surrendering, but I thought better of it. This quote from that article speaks for itself:
"In their first stab at constructing a policy to deal with the strange new threat of Islamic terrorism, the French adopted a policy of appeasement -- an approach that included tacit permission for globally oriented terrorist groups to use French soil as a base, so long as the groups did not make France itself a target."
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
And this is a pro france article? Is French military and diplomatic history so poor that even a propaganda aricle cannot do better than to post that little tidbit?
-
The sad part is that its true.
Unbelievable.
I mean look at this (from the same article) :
"The French were among the first to note that terrorism was a global movement," he said. But before they came to this realization, they floundered. In the 1980s, a wave of bombings struck Paris targets, including department stores and subways. Not only were the French unable to prevent these attacks, they were also clueless about the perpetrators and motives. At first they thought that domestic neo-Nazi militants were behind an assault on a synagogue in a wealthy section of Paris. Only belatedly did they realize that responsibility lay with terrorists from the Middle East.
The French had descended to this low point through their adoption of what Shapiro calls the "sanctuary doctrine" -- a morally repugnant effort to isolate France from international terrorism by taking a neutral stance toward global terrorist groups. The idea was to give the terrorists no reason to attack France. (Better they hit someone else.)
It didn't work. Other countries actively battling terrorism, such as Spain and Israel, were understandably outraged that France was sheltering their enemies. Some splinter terrorist bands failed to recognize France as a "sanctuary" and targeted French interests anyway. And amid the Paris attacks, the French public demanded a get-tough approach.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So they do have more experience with terrorism.
Wow...I'd say you managed to miss the point with about a mile.
Yes, they do have experience with terrorism, and their weapon of choise in dealing with it was surrendering to the terrorists. Did you read the parts I quoted?
-
If you call surrendering to terrorists at every step "experience" then yes they do.
Oh yea, lets ask New Zealanders what they think about france and terrorism...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Naw, I missed your point by more than a mile I'd say, but intentionally. I'm no fan of French foreign policy, they are self centered, arrogant and don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. However they do have more experience with terrorism and occupation, and they were right in their analysis on the situation. Like it or not.
Analisys of their situation in Algeria maybe. But Iraq in 2003 is not 1960s Algeria, not by a bunch of miles...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
they do have more experience with terrorism and occupation, and they were right in their analysis on the situation.
I disagree with both these statements.
Yes, they have more experience with occupation, but that comes with the territory when surrendering in a war.
But no, they do not have more experience with terrorism, unless you want to define exactly what you mean with "more experience". Have they endured more attacks than the US? Have they been attacked by terrorists for a longer period in time? What do you mean when you say that?
And they were oh-so-definitively-NOT right in their "analysis of the situation" in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well I see we're still very far from agreeing to almost anything Hortlund. Same old same old I guess. Time will tell. :)
hehe yeah :)
-
GRUNHERZ your not even worth replying to, if you act like that. So I'll act in kind so maybe you wont reply *). There were many more atrocities carried out in history for less. So you go back to bl@wing Bush under the desk and then you can Bl@w me. PS get some on you dress and you will have a case later.
Id like to believe that Muck, not sure what it has to do with Clinton, except that he inherited it from Bush's dad. There is very little to gain for the American people with this war and it all hinged on the fact that he had the ability to devistate the USA with some type of WMD. The inspectors were there, they couldn't find anything. All our great satelite imagery etc. and we have nothing. Take North Korea, we know they have and are producing WMD but yet they are barely a blip on the radar.
I dont think he is on the take I merely am asking the questions. It is undeniable the amount of money US companies are making. Do you really think it had nothing to do with it.
I think the cost to the average American is far superior to the very small gain if any of security. There on the other hand are a very small few, who obviousely gained a great deal at a huge cost to every American.
I agreed with the war on the basis that Saddam had verifiable WMDs, without that I would have been against it.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Were they right to continue to sell weapons to Iraq after Gulf War I?
why they should not sell convetial weapons to iraq ?
-
Grunherz:
Unlike the French in algeria who were racist imperialists bent on domination
Grunherz:
natually (as with most things french) they failed
Poor Grunerdz... I wish you had the opportunity to read books, have debates or go to the university. You recall me one of these commies puking on the fascists, saying that they oppress the working class and so on: different shape, same background. You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.
-
WOW!
Hotlund out-Gunherzed Grunherz!
Where do I send the fan mail?;)
BTW, if the world has not already realized it, you cannot appease terrorists. They want you dead, unless you are exactly like them.
Anyone feel like converting to radical islam?
Unless the answer is yes, they want to kill you.
-
Originally posted by maslo
why they should not sell convetial weapons to iraq ?
Wasnt it illegal and in violation of several UN resolutions?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
We've not found and WMD's yet, and we may never. IIRC correctly, this was one of 4 reasons we invaded Iraq and not the sole reason.
and those 3 other reasons are ?
-
You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.
How is that?
-
Originally posted by mars01
GRUNHERZ your not even worth replying to, if you act like that. So I'll act in kind so maybe you wont reply *). There were many more atrocities carried out in history for less. So you go back to bl@wing Bush under the desk and then you can Bl@w me. PS get some on you dress and you will have a case later.
Careful Grunherz, I think this one has a thing for you.
mars01, I think you might be looking for "Dowding" in case you are looking for oral sex with men. He admitted to being homosexual a while ago.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Post proofs.
And not the Roland 3 affair that was a hoax, nor the F1 spare parts that was a hoax, not the propellant stuff for the iraqi missiles that was prooved to be an hoax too.
Thank you, have a nice day.
Now before I go through the effort (and not much) of proving you wrong, let me make sure I am clear; you are saying France did not sell weapons or weapons-related technology to Iraq between 1991-2003? Are you SURE you want to stand by that?
We'll see whose day is nice in the end. ;)
I'll give you a little hint... France wanted and needed Iraqi oil. What did France have that Iraq needed?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I love the way the get all superior and start speaking in French. Too bad that language is only useful in France, Quebec, and crappy restaurants.
to ze se dement a jinak se nedomluvis, za to ti nikdo nemuze.
taky se francouzsky domluvis ve Svicarsku, Madagaskaru, Nove guineji,Nigerii, pulce africe
and its second world diplomatic language my dear ignorant
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The sad part is that its true.
Unbelievable.
I mean look at this (from the same article) :
"The French were among the first to note that terrorism was a global movement," he said. But before they came to this realization, they floundered. In the 1980s, a wave of bombings struck Paris targets, including department stores and subways. Not only were the French unable to prevent these attacks, they were also clueless about the perpetrators and motives. At first they thought that domestic neo-Nazi militants were behind an assault on a synagogue in a wealthy section of Paris. Only belatedly did they realize that responsibility lay with terrorists from the Middle East.
The French had descended to this low point through their adoption of what Shapiro calls the "sanctuary doctrine" -- a morally repugnant effort to isolate France from international terrorism by taking a neutral stance toward global terrorist groups. The idea was to give the terrorists no reason to attack France. (Better they hit someone else.)
It didn't work. Other countries actively battling terrorism, such as Spain and Israel, were understandably outraged that France was sheltering their enemies. Some splinter terrorist bands failed to recognize France as a "sanctuary" and targeted French interests anyway. And amid the Paris attacks, the French public demanded a get-tough approach.
:rofl
You need to learn to read.
As for surrendering to the terrorist, if Grunerdz & so on insult the memory of the french people who died to the terrorist, then can I go piss on the 9/11 memorial? According to that logic, I would theorically ve allowed to do so.
As for all that surrender rhetoric, hehe, then I'd say that the wank... errh yankees are even more cowards, after all, they lost just 300 000 men in 3 years, while the French lost 120 000 in six weeks.
And pleeeease, Hortlund, don't make me troll by talking on how Sweden surrendered to Germany during the last two world wars to stay out of the big business... (well, aside of the ore it sold to make german guns :D )
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Wasnt it illegal and in violation of several UN resolutions?
I would think so. Iraq was still under sanctions in that time frame.
-
My point with Clinton, mars, is that he DID lie. He knew he got a BJ from Monica and Denied it. Thats a lie. Bush..did he know there are NO WMDs....I don't think so.
Think about it. If you make a bold statement, and KNOW that your going to invade Iraq and KNOW your going to carpet the place looking for WMDs and KNOW the world will be watching...would you make WMDs the lynchpin of the reasoning unless you were DAMN sure they were there?
Ridiculous tangent time:
The Pope is a liar. He told me there is God, but no one has been able to prove He exists! LIAR!!!
Now tell me what Bush needs crony money for? He is rich. He is powerful. He could have spent the rest of his life Binge drinking and living off his Dads money.
So according to your thinking, he decided to invade Iraq to enrich himself, and these companies. Why? To get more support for the '04 election? This war was a sure fire way to lose the presidency before the first body bag came home. Any political strategist could tell him that. Look at the numbers before the war...50-50 split over the war.
So, why would you commit political suicide for a war if your already rich, and if engaging in this battle will lose you 50% of the vote? Answer me that.
You know what I think. Because Bush believes what he is doing is the right thing for America. Whether or not he is correct, we shall see, but I believe he is doing what he thinks is right for our country, not himself.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I'll give you a little hint... France wanted and needed Iraqi oil. What did France have that Iraq needed?
read that:
No more persuasive is the widely voiced (in the U.S.) argument that the French were defending wide-reaching and profitable commercial relationships with Saddam's regime. The truth is that France enjoyed minor economic ties with Saddam. Under the United Nations' now-defunct Oil for Food program with Saddam's Iraq, the French were only the 13th-largest participant. The U.S. under that program bought more than 50 percent of Iraq's total oil exports, the French 8 percent.
From the article posted above. :rofl
What I know, it's that the US troops secured immediately the iraqi oil ministery, while the Baghdad antiquities were being plundered, and that the archeological sites are STILL being plundered.
-
Originally posted by maslo
to ze se dement a jinak se nedomluvis, za to ti nikdo nemuze.
taky se francouzsky domluvis ve Svicarsku, Nigerii, pulce africe
and its second world diplomatic country my dear ignorant
If your going to insult me, at least get a translator...my dear...how do you say....schmuck.
It must suck to be second in everything except body odor.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
You need to learn to read.
[/b]
Eh...Did you actually read the article yourself? Those are direct quotes from the article.
As for surrendering to the terrorist, if Grunerdz & so on insult the memory of the french people who died to the terrorist, then can I go piss on the 9/11 memorial? According to that logic, I would theorically ve allowed to do so.
As for all that surrender rhetoric, hehe, then I'd say that the wank... errh yankees are even more cowards, after all, they lost just 300 000 men in 3 years, while the French lost 120 000 in six weeks.
[/b]
What the hell are you talking about?
Look, its quite simple.
1) Read the article.
2) Find this passage: "In their first stab at constructing a policy to deal with the strange new threat of Islamic terrorism, the French adopted a policy of appeasement -- an approach that included tacit permission for globally oriented terrorist groups to use French soil as a base, so long as the groups did not make France itself a target."
3) Use a dictionary to translate that passage to whatever language you understand.
4) Explain the morality in that behavior, and how it is not surrendering to terrorism to adopt the stance "do whatever you want to others, you can even hide in our nation, just dont hurt us please"
And pleeeease, Hortlund, don't make me troll by talking on how Sweden surrendered to Germany during the last two world wars to stay out of the big business... (well, aside of the ore it sold to make german guns :D )
Yeah, go ahead...knock yourself out. Most ppl on this forum will tend to spot the obvious attempt to shift topic of the discussion though, so I dont think it will do you any good. Although if you do a search, you will realize that I have argued before that Sweden was closer to being a minor German ally in ww2 more than anything else, and last time I checked, allies didnt surrender to eachother.
-
BTW, watch closely, this will be the thread that gets me on probation.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Poor Grunerdz... I wish you had the opportunity to read books, have debates or go to the university. You recall me one of these commies puking on the fascists, saying that they oppress the working class and so on: different shape, same background. You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.
Actually the whole thing is qoaotable.
Lets break it down step by step:
Are you saying that if I were to go to university that I would be indoctorinated with a pro french worl view? I am going to university right now and will graduate this next june. I'm sure that I have missed much by sleeping through the glory of france clasess.. Histrory clasess, as much as I enjoy them. are slow painfully slow at times.... Really are you so arrogant that you belive all those who dont by into french glory propaganda are unducated or going more broadly with regard to your statement about books, unsophisticated as well.
As for me being racist about france? Well thats hillarious, perhaps that why I VOLUNTARILY studied the french language for several years - I knew it pretty danm well although I have forgotten much of it through lack of use since... :( Sorry to burst your bubble there...
You may now surrender to my argument.. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://www.gavle.to/~stephan.dubois/the_sign.jpg)
%¤# Frogs...
where exactly did war stoped communism ?
-
Originally posted by maslo
where exactly did war stoped communism ?
South Korea, Finland, Chile, Afghanistan, Nicaragua...
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
:rofl
As for all that surrender rhetoric, hehe, then I'd say that the wank... errh yankees are even more cowards, after all, they lost just 300 000 men in 3 years, while the French lost 120 000 in six weeks.
So what you're saying is that in addition to being surrender monkeys, they can't fight either?
I guess the latter explains the former.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
As for all that surrender rhetoric, hehe, then I'd say that the wank... errh yankees are even more cowards, after all, they lost just 300 000 men in 3 years, while the French lost 120 000 in six weeks.
There we have it! French military failiures explained at last! THEY WERE GREAT GLORIOUSC VICTORIES BECAUSE THEY LOST A GREAT DEAL OF MEN IN A SHORT TIME UNLIKE THE COWARDLY AMERICANS WHO HAD FEWER CASUALTIES!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
South Korea, Finland, Chile, Afghanistan, Nicaragua...
LIES! Kim Il Sung was a loving father for all Koreans!
Add Poland as well, they fought aar aginst the red communists in russia who made it as far west as warsaw.
Of course Finland also had a massive red vs white civil war during the 1920s - the whites won and so finland was not communist.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
South Korea, Finland, Chile, Afghanistan, Nicaragua...
can you post years and war sides ??
1st South Korea .. there is only truce not a peace
-
Originally posted by maslo
can you post years and war sides ??
1st South Korea .. there is only truce not a peace
Are you serious? You do understand that the Communist North koreans invaded the south and that without US/UN intervention that they would have captured the whole south korea and made it communist like the north. The war finally drove the communits back to to the original borders where they remain today.
Should we compare the quality of life and human rights in NK to SK today to see the why this military defeat of communist agression was a good thing?
Again are you serious?
-
Originally posted by maslo
can you post years and war sides ??
1st South Korea .. there is only truce not a peace
Don't waste your time...you could interview soldiers who fought in these wars and this guy would never believe you.
Your right...No war ever stopped communism...:rolleyes:
How 'bout the cold war. We defeated communism, and never fired a shot.;)
-
He cant possibly be serious, can he? I cant stop repeating that in my head.
Are you serious? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
read that:
From the article posted above. :rofl
What I know, it's that the US troops secured immediately the iraqi oil ministery, while the Baghdad antiquities were being plundered, and that the archeological sites are STILL being plundered.
Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.
Care to comment? Wanna comment on the billions of dollars France loses if there is no SH to pay back the debt owed? There is nothing unbiased about the French position on Iraq, and there is nothing noble, either. America is looking out for its own interests, no question, but you have no moral high ground in France. "Pardon my French", but Chirac is a two-faced liar where Iraq is concerned.
Speaking of discredited stories, your "looting" story was long ago disproven. If you're going to play that game, you're going to lose badly.
-
Originally posted by maslo
can you post years and war sides ??
1st South Korea .. there is only truce not a peace
South Korea
1951-1953
Doesnt matter that there is only a truce, it was a war that kept communism out of South Korea. Without the war, South Korea would have met the same gruesly fate as South Vietnam.
Communists attacking and ended up being beaten back.
Finland
1939-1944
Communist Soviet union attacked Finland in 1939. Finland managed to beat off the attacker, and eventually managed to stay independent by giving up some land.
Chile
1973
Was not a "real" war, so maybe I should not include that one... Anyway, Allende, communist president was removed in a coup.
Nicaragua
1982-1988 (or something like that)
Was not a "real" war either, but rather a civil war, perhaps it should not be included either on second thought.
Anyway, the communist Sandinistas was removed after a rather long civil war against the Contras. Hmm, now that I think about it, I think they were defeated in an election after all those years of civil war. I withdraw Nicaragua from my list, since technically the communists lost power in an election.
Afghanistan
1979-1989
Communist Soviet union invades Afghanistan in 1979 and is defeated.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Again are you serious?
yes im there is truce between N and S korea not a peace.
or its not true ?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Care to comment? Wanna comment on the billions of dollars France loses if there is no SH to pay back the debt owed? There is nothing unbiased about the French position on Iraq, and there is nothing noble, either. America is looking out for its own interests, no question, but you have no moral high ground in France. "Pardon my French", but Chirac is a two-faced liar where Iraq is concerned.
Speaking of discredited stories, your "looting" story was long ago disproven. If you're going to play that game, you're going to lose badly.
Go to univehrcity, you filty unwashed amehrican piiiig!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by maslo
yes im there is truce between N and S korea not a peace.
or its not true ?
Wow!
You do realize that the Communist invading NK troops would not have left SK if the USA/UN did not go fight them?
Is this clear?
-
Well, your latent francophobia is showing up via the historical revisionism you're constantly making. If I used the same rhetoric, I'd be allowed to say:
"the US fails everywhere: they got their bellybutton kicked in Korea by korean yokels armed with forks, by viets with forks, by phillipines with forks, by somalians with forks, and finally in Iraq. They're also the country of the genocide, with the Indians, the Phillipines, and concentration camps with the japanese in WW2, and racist & backward laws in the former confederate states in the US..." I sincerly don't think anything like that, but I smell a very funny "superior american" odor. Ya know, the British under queen Victoria thought that the English were superior (of course, especially to these pesky eternal ennemies that was France at the time) , and now look at wich level they felt. They got bypassed economically by the US & Germany & France.
As for the reference to the university, I wasn't referring to the lessons, but the the intellectual life at the university. That's where you can discuss/ argue with people of different opinions, and you have to assume what you're saying, because if you insult (different from not agreeing with someone else' opinion FYI) them freely like what's going on there, you'll end up with a broken nose.
Hortlund, that's my point. Why do you talk of a surrender especially when it's about France, while UK is applying this policy RIGHT NOW, letting terrorists live and act freely on its soil, and that some terrorists guilty of terrorist acts in France have been safe for a decade in UK?
edit: typo
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
UK is applying this policy RIGHT NOW, letting terrorists live and act freely on its soil
Sorry, gonna call BS on this one.
Post your sources.
-
I do discuss things at university, with people of different opinons, it just pisses you off that I disagree with your asinine french arrogance and pretesnses of glory...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
South Korea
1951-1953
Doesnt matter that there is only a truce, it was a war that kept communism out of South Korea. Without the war, South Korea would have met the same gruesly fate as South Vietnam.
Communists attacking and ended up being beaten back.
Finland
1939-1944
Communist Soviet union attacked Finland in 1939. Finland managed to beat off the attacker, and eventually managed to stay independent by giving up some land.
Chile
1973
Was not a "real" war, so maybe I should not include that one... Anyway, Allende, communist president was removed in a coup.
Nicaragua
1982-1988 (or something like that)
Was not a "real" war either, but rather a civil war, perhaps it should not be included either on second thought.
Anyway, the communist Sandinistas was removed after a rather long civil war against the Contras. Hmm, now that I think about it, I think they were defeated in an election after all those years of civil war. I withdraw Nicaragua from my list, since technically the communists lost power in an election.
Afghanistan
1979-1989
Communist Soviet union invades Afghanistan in 1979 and is defeated.
ad Korea... no comunism wasnt defeated, you only pushed it back, where it was before, you prevent expansion, so you didnt defeat anything
Finland .... europe were separated by hitler and stalin and both went for their 'new' lands... finland managed to defent them self, they never defeated any communist country
ad Chile, Nicarague... war and civil war is a bit diferent isnt it ?
Afghanistan... yes same song again.. Communist didnt expand, they didnt lose anything...
So where exacly were communist regime attacked, defeated and transformed by military power ?
-
one of saddams aids told reporters after the US success in ousting saddame from power that he (saddam) was certain that France and Russia would be able to call bluff on the US and squash politically any attempts at the UN to invade. Apparently he (saddam) had assurances from both his allies that they could contain US unlawful aggression
Saddam made three mistakes on this one:
1) He thought the US was bluffing
2) He trusted his ally, France
3) He trusted his ally, Russia
France made the mistake of coming to neither of her allies, the US
or Saddams side. Typical French.......backstabbers and totally undependable in any situation that requries backbone and tenacity.
For a whole new generation of Amercians (cept some ignorant texans) France is no ally.
Dont take what I say here seriously, I dont :aok
-
Originally posted by maslo
no comunism wasnt defeated, you only pushed it back, where it was before, you prevent expansion, so you didnt defeat anything
europe were separated by hitler and stalin and both went for their 'new' lands... finland managed to defent them self, they never defeated any communist country
Oh please. I am so NOT getting into some weird semantics discussion here... ESPECIALLY not with someone who can barely express himself in English no less!
The question was "where did war stop communism" the answer is Finland, Afghanistan and South Korea. Without war, those nations would suffer under communism. Thanks to the war, they remained free. That means the war stopped communism in those countries.
So where exacly were communist regime attacked, defeated and transformed by military power ?
[/b]
That was not your original question, now was it?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There we have it! French military failiures explained at last! THEY WERE GREAT GLORIOUSC VICTORIES BECAUSE THEY LOST A GREAT DEAL OF MEN IN A SHORT TIME UNLIKE THE COWARDLY AMERICANS WHO HAD FEWER CASUALTIES!
Thought that the surrender thing was meaning that the French surrendered without firing a single cartridge? heh...
Add Poland as well, they fought aar aginst the red communists in russia who made it as far west as warsaw.
Heh, strangely, in this affair, the "communist" frogs were the first to assist Poland in this war, supplying them with weapons and military advisors. In fact, this affair had not much to do with communism, Poland was more willing to extend its territory due to ethnical & historical reasons than anything else.
Hortlund, go read any newspaper/book dealing about this subject. UK has just begun to increase its control over these groups.
I do discuss things at university, with people of different opinons, it just pisses you off that I disagree with your asinine french arrogance and pretesnses of glory...
And do you treat them the same way in the real life? As for arrogance & glory, I return you the comment [/kindergarten]
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
"the US fails everywhere: they got their bellybutton kicked in Korea by korean yokels armed with forks, by viets with forks,
If I am not mistaken, Vietnamese and Koreans prefer chopsticks, not forks.
You forgot to mention France in your diatribe. Oh now I remember, it was the French who got their bellybutton kicked in France by the Germans. The Allies, of which the USA was a very large part, kicked bellybutton to bail you out. Thats why you have a couple of beaches named Utah and Omaha.
Go to the cemetaries in Normandy and get a clue.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
one of saddams aids told reporters after the US success in ousting saddame from power that he (saddam) was certain that France and Russia would be able to call bluff on the US and squash politically any attempts at the UN to invade. Apparently he (saddam) had assurances from both his allies that they could contain US unlawful aggression
Saddam made three mistakes on this one:
1) He thought the US was bluffing
2) He trusted his ally, France
3) He trusted his ally, Russia
France made the mistake of coming to neither of her allies, the US
or Saddams side. Typical French.......backstabbers and totally undependable in any situation that requries backbone and tenacity.
For a whole new generation of Amercians (cept some ignorant texans) France is no ally.
Dont take what I say here seriously, I dont :aok
And you wonder with such BS the majority of the europeans think that the USA are the 2nd greatest threat to the world peace... :lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I am not mistaken, Vietnamese and Koreans prefer chopsticks, not forks.
You forgot to mention France in your diatribe. Oh now I remember, it was the French who got their bellybutton kicked in France by the Germans. The Allies, of which the USA was a very large part, kicked bellybutton to bail you out. Thats why you have a couple of beaches named Utah and Omaha.
Go to the cemetaries in Normandy and get a clue.
Did you read the post?
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Hortlund, go read any newspaper/book dealing about this subject. UK has just begun to increase its control over these groups.
You are SO full of cheese.
Instead of sitting here and just making stuff up, why dont you go back to my question there... Do you remember that one?
Explain the morality in that behavior, and how it is not surrendering to terrorism to adopt the stance "do whatever you want to others, you can even hide in our nation, just dont hurt us please"
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Did you read the post?
Sorry, missed the first line in my scanning technique.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Did you read the post?
They got their butts kicked then, like a dog, rallied the troops in support of the German occupiers.
Tell Chirac not to tick me off, I'll send my niece over their to kick his arse and run the country for awhile after he surrencers.
-
So, how did those Mirage fighters keep on flyin' all those years? Was France owed a debt to the tune of $8 billion? Are you trying to maintain France acted only in the interest of world peace? Seriously.
As to the US being a threat, if France wouldn't sign agreements with their fingers crossed behind their backs, maybe some conflicts could be avoided? In clearer English, France should be more forthright in their dealings on the world stage. Trying to play both ends of the table at the same time is just too confusing to us dumb Americans.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
And you wonder with such BS the majority of the europeans think that the USA are the 2nd greatest threat to the world peace... :lol
Here we agree, if there as no USA or Americans the world would be much safer and more peaceful. In fact some peace loving folks are working hard to make sure that happends...
So far, 3000 down and 270 million to go!
(http://www.arachnoid.com/levels/wtc.jpg)
-
But the answer was implied in that reference to UK. It didn't work, it was an error. It worked for some other countries, it didn't work in the case of France, especially because of the french stance toward Iran in 1980's.
What some people don't seem to understand, is that the politic in itself always adapt to the reality, and that the ideological stances always fail when confronted to the reality.
The "I'm neat so be neat with me" internal policy didn't work, we're now way ahead of the others to protect us against the islamist terror, because we've infiltrated their networks. The so-called appeasement that France is supposed to make in the Middle East right now is not appeasement in the sense of "take everything as long as you don't hurt us", but to compensate the totally idiotic (because led by the neo-con ideology) US foreign policy in this area of the globe. Bush is spreading oil over the fire, and we don't want to pay for them, because as usual, the US are not protected by a courageous army, but by 5000 km of water, and we're not. -BTW, if the US would have had a common border with Germany, no doubt that the panzers would have paraded in Manhattan, not because US soldiers wouldn't have courageous or are living in a so-called decadent nation, but because the US doctrine was as outdated as the french one in 1940- . We're fighting the terror, we participated and are still participating in Afghanistan, but going in Iraq is the best give ever done to the islamists. Add to this the amateurish handling of the situation (even not able to make a discret intoxication campaign with the WMD, and an unprepared occupation, because the spin doctors that they'd be greated with flowers), Osama is probably having an orgasm (if he's still able to do so) right now.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So, how did those Mirage fighters keep on flyin' all those years? Was France owed a debt to the tune of $8 billion? Are you trying to maintain France acted only in the interest of world peace? Seriously.
As to the US being a threat, if France wouldn't sign agreements with their fingers crossed behind their backs, maybe some conflicts could be avoided? In clearer English, France should be more forthright in their dealings on the world stage. Trying to play both ends of the table at the same time is just too confusing to us dumb Americans.
They had no spare parts, they cannibalized them or maybe that they bought it t other countries that used the F1. From the military websites, they had just a few of their F1 operationnal in 2003. I could suggest like you that the US are supplying Iran, as they still use F14s... aaah, I forgot, Reagan did it with the Irangate affair :D
-
All well and good, but if you want peace, the UN has to work. For the UN to work, ALL sides are required to play it straight, not just the US. If the US is going to be held to a different standard than Europe, it won't work.
If you sign a UN sanction, you have to back it up. Saying "dire consequences" didn't mean war (and it would be tough to argue Bush meant anything else) is not being straight. Bush forced the UN hand, true, but in a way it's a good thing; the UN and Security Council showed themselves to be a joke. Better to happen now than later.
-
Hey, I'd agree about the F14's, except it is definitely not in our best interests to sell F-14's to Iran...
...or maybe it is... after all, we did retire them...
BTW, did Iraq owe France money or not? How 'bout this bit?
In the years since the Gulf War, most attention has focused on weapons companies in Germany, Britain, Russia, France for smuggling weapons via grey-market fronts to Iraq.
Little has been done to stop them. In fact, UNSCOM is forbidden from making public any information regarding weapons suppliers that it may find in its inspections in Iraq. The rationale is that without such a prohibition, countries would refuse to back UNSCOM's efforts. But the result, of course, is virtual impunity for the companies and the countries licensing them who continue to ship the weapons.
Hm? Have a nice day. ;)
-
"And you wonder with such BS the majority of the europeans think that the USA are the 2nd greatest threat to the world peace... "
With intellects like yours, it's no wonder at all.
-
Going to the bed, so that Grunerdz can get his UBB victory.
A vaincre sans péril on triomphe sans gloire
-Corneille, in Le Cid.
You guys are just paranoïds. You see ennemies where you shouldn't, and you're not leaving the door open for your real ennemies, you're doing even worse: you're giving them reasons (in the muslim opinion) to hurt you even harder.
The euro polls don't mean: "we're afraid that the US will invade us" (they'd be nuked anyway), but "we're afraid that the US, due to their current foreign policy, cause a global war". You put the finger in the gears with Iraq, and not condemning strongly the israeli illegal settlements, let's see what will happen in 2004. An iranian affair is emerging...
-
Didn't Bush just condemn the settlements in the last few days? Am I hallucinating?
-
Chile that's a good one with a CIA paid political assassination followed up by years of roving death and torture squads, i'm sure all those people are happy aboot that and had a picture of Kissenger hanging on their cell walls to idolize.
El Salvador and Nicagragua oh yah all those well trained terr... i mean freedom fighters trained at the SOA and now they account for some of the worst atrocities in Latin American history.
Afganistan there a good one who was it that got millions from a certain govn't oh yeah Benny Laden, yah we're on a roll!
Nothing like creating a breeding ground for terrorist in the name of Democracy, GO TEAM!:aok
I think it was two frenchmen she walked away with.;)
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
The euro polls don't mean: "we're afraid that the US will invade us" (they'd be nuked anyway), but "we're afraid that the US, due to their current foreign policy, cause a global war". You put the finger in the gears with Iraq, and not condemning strongly the israeli illegal settlements, let's see what will happen in 2004. An iranian affair is emerging...
Yes, the Europeans are experts at preventing global wars!!!! I shudder at the thought if the old euro powers represented the west in the cold war instead of the usa...
-
Originally posted by Torque
Chile that's a good one with a CIA paid political assassination followed up by years of roving death and torture squads, i'm sure all those people are happy aboot that and had a picture of Kissenger hanging on their cell walls to idolize.
El Salvador and Nicagragua oh yah all those well trained terr... i mean freedom fighters trained at the SOA and now they account for some of the worst atrocities in Latin American history.
Afganistan there a good one who was it that got millions from a certain govn't oh yeah Benny Laden, yah we're on a roll!
Nothing like creating a breeding ground for terrorist in the name of Democracy, GO TEAM!:aok
I think it was two frenchmen she walked away with.;)
Not terrorists, freedom fighters... :aok ;)
Some nasty business there in SA, no doubt, but better than the spread of communism to add to their preexisting misery.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.
Good point. I forgot how admantly sympathetic France was towards the Jewish people.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Good point. I totally forgot how adamently sympathetic France was to the Jewish people.
Touche!
-
France is a greater threat to world peace than you realize.
-
I an still angry at the French government's decision not to stand with America.
Thankfully about 50% of the French population feels the same way.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Well, your latent francophobia is showing up via the historical revisionism you're constantly making. If I used the same rhetoric, I'd be allowed to say:
"the US fails everywhere: they got their bellybutton kicked in Korea by korean yokels armed with forks, by viets with forks, by phillipines with forks, by somalians with forks, and finally in Iraq. They're also the country of the genocide, with the Indians, the Phillipines, and concentration camps with the japanese in WW2, and racist & backward laws in the former confederate states in the US..." I sincerly don't think anything like that, but I smell a very funny "superior american" odor. Ya know, the British under queen Victoria thought that the English were superior (of course, especially to these pesky eternal ennemies that was France at the time) , and now look at wich level they felt. They got bypassed economically by the US & Germany & France.
As for the reference to the university, I wasn't referring to the lessons, but the the intellectual life at the university. That's where you can discuss/ argue with people of different opinions, and you have to assume what you're saying, because if you insult (different from not agreeing with someone else' opinion FYI) them freely like what's going on there, you'll end up with a broken nose.
Hortlund, that's my point. Why do you talk of a surrender especially when it's about France, while UK is applying this policy RIGHT NOW, letting terrorists live and act freely on its soil, and that some terrorists guilty of terrorist acts in France have been safe for a decade in UK?
edit: typo
You've been lurking since 2/01 and THIS is the best drivel
you can field? Holy moly!
-
Originally posted by maslo
ad Korea... no comunism wasnt defeated, you only pushed it back, where it was before, you prevent expansion, so you didnt defeat anything
Finland .... europe were separated by hitler and stalin and both went for their 'new' lands... finland managed to defent them self, they never defeated any communist country
ad Chile, Nicarague... war and civil war is a bit diferent isnt it ?
Afghanistan... yes same song again.. Communist didnt expand, they didnt lose anything...
So where exacly were communist regime attacked, defeated and transformed by military power ?
Moscow 1992..hardliners lost
-
Originally posted by Rino
Moscow 1992..hardliners lost
No no no that was a minor civil war and the communists were not exiled to Zimbabwe - nice try though... :lol
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Wow...I'd say you managed to miss the point with about a mile.
Yes, they do have experience with terrorism, and their weapon of choise in dealing with it was surrendering to the terrorists. Did you read the parts I quoted?
We perhaps surrender (your word) but we didn't armed them :)
Originally posted by Hortlund
Careful Grunherz, I think this one has a thing for you.
mars01, I think you might be looking for "Dowding" in case you are looking for oral sex with men. He admitted to being homosexual a while ago.
I rate this one 0/20.
Originally posted by Kieran
Care to comment? Wanna comment on the billions of dollars France loses if there is no SH to pay back the debt owed? There is nothing unbiased about the French position on Iraq, and there is nothing noble, either. America is looking out for its own interests, no question, but you have no moral high ground in France. "Pardon my French", but Chirac is a two-faced liar where Iraq is concerned.
Speaking of discredited stories, your "looting" story was long ago disproven. If you're going to play that game, you're going to lose badly.
Billions ?
Aren't you confusing France and Russia ?
Originally posted by Hortlund
Sorry, gonna call BS on this one.
Post your sources.
Abu Qatada, Djamel Beghal,Abu Hamza ring a bell ?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
France is a greater threat to world peace than you realize.
Empty rhetorical statements like that one tick me off. It has no meaning and it's only purpose is to use an use unnamed fear to instill doubt. More than one realises eh? Give me a break.
:rolleyes:
Chirac did his job, he represented the wishes of the french people. Which is more than Bush did. Up to a month before the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the American people felt that Iraq should not be invaded at all or without a UN mandate.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 24-26, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, the U.S., Great Britain, and Spain plan to submit a resolution to the United Nations that says that Iraq is in serious violation of prior UN resolutions that required Iraq to disarm. Do you think the United States should invade Iraq with ground troops only if the UN approves this new resolution, even if the UN does not approve this new resolution, or do you think the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all?" Options were rotated
Only with UN Approval - 40%
Even Without UN Approval - 38%
Not At All - 19%
No Opinion - 3%
And for you French, Germans and Russians out there, have not fear, the people on this board giving you crap represent the minority of Americans.
"Several U.S. allies, such as France, Germany, and Russia, oppose taking military action against Iraq at this time. Which of the following best describes how you feel about these countries not supporting the U.S. position on Iraq? Would you say that you agree with the position of these allies, disagree with these allies but respect their right to take that position, or are you angry that these allies are not supporting the United States?"
Agree with position of these allies - 18%
Disagree, but respect their right to take that position - 42%
Angry that they are not supporting the United States - 35%
Not sure - 5%
One last one for you Americans that have spoken out against Bush, take comfort. ;)
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 25-26, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Some people say that Americans who criticize President Bush and his position on Iraq are acting in an unpatriotic way. Other people say they are acting in an appropriate way by expressing their opinions through their right to free speech. Which of these positions is closer to your own?"
Unpatriotic - 20%
Appropriate 72%
Not sure - 8%
-
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
Does every decision have to be popular? Does that mean presidents avoid making the tough decisions, and only make popular decisions? What does that mean for leadership?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
From Jan 20, 1993 to Jan 20, 2001
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
Does every decision have to be popular? Does that mean presidents avoid making the tough decisions, and only make popular decisions? What does that mean for leadership?
My Prime Minister is my employee not my leader. I'm an adult, I don't need someone else to lead me. But no, governing is not always done based solely on opinion polls, lobbiest play their part as well.
Also, when I hire a representitive, I do an interview. This takes place during their election campaign, they give me information, I then make an informed decision based on what they tell me they are going to do over the life time of that contract, whether or not to hire them.
Funny thing though, I don't recall Bush saying during his election campaign that he was planning on invading Iraq. Infact if I recall correctly the major of the US electorate rejected what he did campaign for in the first place.
-
Well here we differ, I see the President as having a leadership role in our nation. However maybe the parlinmentary system is set up differently in this aspect and maybe it's because you are Canadian! ;)
As for Iraq, that only happend because of our new focus on the mid east resulting from 911. Were you angered that he did not announce the Afghanistan invasion during the campaign too?
-
Thrawn-
The number has bounced back-and-forth, but it seems certain a substantial debt is owed the French government by the SH regime. I am comfortable I am in the ballpark, but as always, I can be proven wrong.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Funny thing though, I don't recall Bush saying during his election campaign that he was planning on invading Iraq.
Strangely enough he didnt mention 9-11 either... And when attacks like that happen on your nation, you'd better pray you have a leader like GWB.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So what you're saying is that in addition to being surrender monkeys, they can't fight either?
I guess the latter explains the former.
ok ok I can't read this watermelon anymore.....
Skuzzy.....Dale did say DIPLOMATIC.:mad:
the good ol' US of A is the god send country to save us all.....fuggin morons.....your country was born WITH the help of the French.....your most note worthy STATUE is a gift from the French.
the world defeated communism.....but wait a second...China is still communist....so no victory there
2nd most spoken language in the world....French
some of the best Doctors and scientist are French.....
some french soldiers DIED defending against Terrorist....but to you....who gives a chit.
you rather secure OIL then History.....
2nd most sold book in the world is about a french....well Corsican....still french....Jean D'Arc was french....Both made England shake in there boots.
a country with over a 1000 years of history is gettin a lesson from 1 with less the 300 years...... :rolleyes:
when you say arrogance, ego.....your talking about americans my friend...not the french:aok
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Strangely enough he didnt mention 9-11 either... And when attacks like that happen on your nation, you'd better pray you have a leader like GWB.
why.....so we can lash out at a 3rd world country and make us feel better:rolleyes:
completely ignore the world opinion.
ya Irak was gonna invade the good ol' US of A.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I do discuss things at university, with people of different opinons, it just pisses you off that I disagree with your asinine french arrogance and pretesnses of glory...
my my...look in the mirror you fuggin joker:aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I am not mistaken, Vietnamese and Koreans prefer chopsticks, not forks.
You forgot to mention France in your diatribe. Oh now I remember, it was the French who got their bellybutton kicked in France by the Germans. The Allies, of which the USA was a very large part, kicked bellybutton to bail you out. Thats why you have a couple of beaches named Utah and Omaha.
Go to the cemetaries in Normandy and get a clue.
history lesson to u 2 dipchit.....
Canadians....English....India ns(india).....Americans....Aussie's......they defeated the Germans in France.
Maybe you should be more pissed at the Italians instead.....since they supported the Germans:aok
-
Originally posted by SLO
why.....so we can lash out at a 3rd world country and make us feel better:rolleyes:
completely ignore the world opinion.
ya Irak was gonna invade the good ol' US of A.:rolleyes:
I admire your ability to almost get your message across without using images. Most of us, have learned how to communicate without using pictures, maybe some day you will join us.
And world opinion is completely irrelevant when it comes to the defense of your own nation. If world opinion demanded that your country disarmed its army, would you do it?
Iraq posed a threat to the western world. That threat has been removed. This is good.
-
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1107nj1.htm) (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/piss.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So, how did those Mirage fighters keep on flyin' all those years? Was France owed a debt to the tune of $8 billion? Are you trying to maintain France acted only in the interest of world peace? Seriously.
As to the US being a threat, if France wouldn't sign agreements with their fingers crossed behind their backs, maybe some conflicts could be avoided? In clearer English, France should be more forthright in their dealings on the world stage. Trying to play both ends of the table at the same time is just too confusing to us dumb Americans.
same to you.....your not so innocent my friend....where do you think Irak got its fuggin Bio warfare:aok
-
2nd most sold book in the world is about a french....well Corsican....still french....Jean D'Arc was french....Both made England shake in there boots.
Mao-Tse-Tung was French?
Surely shome mistake?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Yeager
France is a greater threat to world peace than you realize.
I think the USA is...go figure:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
Does every decision have to be popular? Does that mean presidents avoid making the tough decisions, and only make popular decisions? What does that mean for leadership?
when lives are at stake.....you better believe opinion polls:aok
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Iraq posed a threat to the western world. That threat has been removed. This is good.
I'll ignore your childish comments.....
Canada did NOT think iraq was a threat to us....you did
but again....only your opinion matters right.....hence the arrogance:aok
-
Originally posted by ravells
Mao-Tse-Tung was French?
Surely shome mistake?
Ravs
go research again:cool:
-
Originally posted by SLO
when lives are at stake.....you better believe opinion polls:aok
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!
When lives are at stake, I do not want my country's direction dictated by some burger flipper who gave a reported his opinion at the Wal-mart.
Slo, this could be the most insane thing you ever said.
BTW, you can come pick up the statue anytime you like. It stands for freedom, so I doubt it would serve much purpose in Paris.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
jeeesuzzz cchhhhhrrrrrriiisste!! Popular opinion matters null ina democracy now?
If it walks and talks like a fascist..... go figure...
k
AoM
-
muck wrote:
When lives are at stake, I do not want my country's direction dictated by some burger flipper who gave a reported his opinion at the Wal-mart.
Cant see just one person makeing a pole... This country was founded on popular opinion.. If you dissagree with that, you either communist(the name calling communist) or very unamerican.. 8)
And, i'd like to keep that statue.. maybe you could take yourself and your ignorant stance somewhere else muck............
k
AoM
-
same to you.....your not so innocent my friend....where do you think Irak got its fuggin Bio warfare
Big difference is I am not claiming the US is innocent, nor am I suggesting it has the moral high ground. From the start I have said France's position on the whole deal has been biased and have used these few points to back it up. Our French friend IS claiming high ground, and is denying France had any interest in keeping the status quo in Iraq.
Clearer now?
-
Originally posted by kappa
muck wrote:
When lives are at stake, I do not want my country's direction dictated by some burger flipper who gave a reported his opinion at the Wal-mart.
Cant see just one person makeing a pole... This country was founded on popular opinion.. If you dissagree with that, you either communist(the name calling communist) or very unamerican.. 8)
And, i'd like to keep that statue.. maybe you could take yourself and your ignorant stance somewhere else muck............
k
AoM
Sure, Kappa..whatever.
Let me play the flame game with you...
Here, have fun...
Kappa: Muck, your ignorant.
Muck: Kappa, your da suck. :rolleyes:
Feel better?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Big difference is I am not claiming the US is innocent, nor am I suggesting it has the moral high ground. From the start I have said France's position on the whole deal has been biased and have used these few points to back it up. Our French friend IS claiming high ground, and is denying France had any interest in keeping the status quo in Iraq.
Clearer now?
Can you put that in the second most used language in the world?
-
And yes, no matter how you wanna change the subject, our american president lied to us... Lied to his congress, his people, his staff.... LIES.... OUR fighting american men are dying because of LIES... LIES LIES>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be dissputed?? Its soooooo obvious... How can anyone with an open mind argue this point?? We all heard him lie..... Some saw him lie...... The evidence is out folks.... Why were we going to war w/ iraqi?? WMD?? Terrorist?? why? I did ask Iraqi.... Why we goto war w/ Iraqi??
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Can you put that in the second most used language in the world?
If I could only speak one language, I suppose i'd stfu to someone that speaks two. Not show that I was an egocentric ignorant american after all...............
k
AoM
-
I'm pretty sure that the second biggest circulated book after the bible was Chairman Mao's 'Quotations from the works of Mao-Tse-Tung'.
I'm absolutely positive it was not a book by or about Napoleon (if that is the Corsican you're talking about)
800,000,000 copies produced....so many chinese people can't be wrong!
:p
Ravs
-
The Pope lied too.
He told me there is a God but has yet to produce any evidence of his existence.
-
Originally posted by kappa
If I could only speak one language, I suppose i'd stfu to someone that speaks two. Not show that I was an egocentric ignorant american after all...............
k
AoM
And you know I only speak one language because?
Sombody pee in your cheerios this morning, Kappa?
-
Kappa, we elect our representatives. Most of those elections are based on popular vote. (The exception being the president, wich is done based on the electoral college, with the idea being that we give the smaller states more say).
They cannot govern based on opinion polls. The right thing is not always the popular thing. If we went by opinion polls, many nukes would have flown Sept. 12th, 2001. There would also be no taxes (you think they are popular?)
Thrawn: "My Prime Minister is my employee not my leader. I'm an adult, I don't need someone else to lead me."
That's weird to hear coming from a country with such socialist tendancies. Your government is much more involved in your life than my government is in my life.
-
Agreed Majic.... splitting hairs here maybe but,
polls (generally) make up the wishes or desires of the people... there are always exceptions to anything... if the president/representative/whatever wants to ignore the feelings of his people, he can and sometimes will.... But to make it a 'normal' stance is just plain suicide... you give the people what they want, your re-elected... you dont... your replaced... acting like or making statments that our government never listened to the people?? thats just plain ignorant...
Taxes? im sure it would be a popular opinion to have taxes.. maybe not what they are now... positively NOT what they WILL be b/c our this presidents agendas.. but the 'normal' american knows and understands government cannot go on w/out a tax... could you imagine how small and incignificant our taxes would be w/out national debt??
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
And yes, no matter how you wanna change the subject, our american president lied to us... Lied to his congress, his people, his staff.... LIES.... OUR fighting american men are dying because of LIES... LIES LIES>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be dissputed?? Its soooooo obvious... How can anyone with an open mind argue this point?? We all heard him lie..... Some saw him lie...... The evidence is out folks.... Why were we going to war w/ iraqi?? WMD?? Terrorist?? why? I did ask Iraqi.... Why we goto war w/ Iraqi??
k
AoM
Now YOU'RE changing the subject. The subject originated with the thought "France said from the beginning it would get messy in Iraq". The thought wasn't "America lied about WMD". At least get your facts straight.
1. Settle Iraq issue once and for all
2. Send message to outlaw regimes
3. Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions
4. UN refused to enforce stronger sanctions
5. Security Council was powerless to act
That should be simple enough to follow. WMD was but one excuse to execute #1. That was a mistake (using WMD intelligence from the UK), but it was a means to an end.
-
what were the other reasons?? And wasnt France right that iraqi had no WMDs??
k
AoM
-
Kierann wrote:
That should be simple enough to follow. WMD was but one excuse to execute #1. That was a mistake (using WMD intelligence from the UK), but it was a means to an end.
A means to an end? It was a lie by our president during a state of the union address before congress... a LIE....... call it what you want.
k
AoM
-
I agree you should be pissed about the intelligence, but your anger should surely extend to every single person in possession of the same intelligence who went right ahead and voted for war. That seems fair, doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Can you put that in the second most used language in the world?
I'll do it for you, muck. I'm not sure he speaks spanish, though.
Big me no estoy demandando los E.U. soy inocente, ni me que los sugiere tengo la alta tierra moral. Del comienzo he dicho que la posición de Francia respecto al reparto del conjunto se ha predispuesto y que ha utilizado estos pocos puntos para moverlo hacia atrás para arriba. Nuestro amigo francés está demandando la alta tierra, y está negando Francia tenía cualquier interés en mantener el status quo Iraq. ¿Más claro ahora?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'll do it for you, muck. I'm not sure he speaks spanish, though.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I agree you should be pissed about the intelligence, but your anger should surely extend to every single person in possession of the same intelligence who went right ahead and voted for war. That seems fair, doesn't it?
Sure i feel the same way... the dems supporting the war are for the most part weak individuals. But they do not recieve the same intellegence the president gets, do they? The CIA and such reports to the president and his folks. Do any other parts of our government recieve the same extensive intelligence the president receives? And, at the same time?? You can blame all in the goverment, but we know where the buck stops, dont we? Albeit that buck has been passed around a lot of late by our president.. They had to have known their 'evidence' was shaky at best...
To me this represents our president perfectly... He will lie to the american people, send our soldiers to die in a distant land, and fek the common person in america just for his contributers... and yet, still!!!, he is defended.............
k
AoM
O yea, and then start some crazy hate game against our nations historical protectors... what a great administration..
-
Originally posted by kappa
Sure i feel the same way... the dems supporting the war are for the most part weak individuals. But they do not recieve the same intellegence the president gets, do they? The CIA and such reports to the president and his folks. Do any other parts of our government recieve the same extensive intelligence the president receives? And, at the same time?? You can blame all in the goverment, but we know where the buck stops, dont we? Albeit that buck has been passed around a lot of late by our president.. They had to have known their 'evidence' was shaky at best...
To me this represents our president perfectly... He will lie to the american people, send our soldiers to die in a distant land, and fek the common person in america just for his contributers... and yet, still!!!, he is defended.............
k
AoM
O yea, and then start some crazy hate game against our nations historical protectors... what a great administration..
What lies did he tell?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What lies did he tell?
lol this post deserves this much ----> <----- attention......
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
lol this post deserves this much ----> <----- attention......
k
AoM
Of course. When you can't answer a question, ignore it. It makes it much easier to continue your discussion.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Sure i feel the same way... the dems supporting the war are for the most part weak individuals. But they do not recieve the same intellegence the president gets, do they? The CIA and such reports to the president and his folks. Do any other parts of our government recieve the same extensive intelligence the president receives? And, at the same time?? You can blame all in the goverment, but we know where the buck stops, dont we? Albeit that buck has been passed around a lot of late by our president.. They had to have known their 'evidence' was shaky at best...
To be fair, this evidence is yet to be disproven. The British still maintain it is good intelligence. The fault of Bush and everyone who voted for war is the evidence was not cleared by CIA.
If you think I am defending Bush in this, you are wrong. OTOH, I don't think our Congress should get a pass either. And yes, if they push hard enough they can surely get that level of intelligence. They can also ask if the intelligence passed muster. Seems like a reasonable enough request.
-
I thought the idea that SH was buying weapons material from africa had ALL be disproven............ that even the brits had discovered they were wrong??
No matter... that was not all he said in the SotU speech. He said america (us) had extensive proof of WMDs in Iraqi... He said we knew exactly were they were.... He said that this 'axis of evil' must be stopped before they attack america.... He said Iraqi represented a clear and present danger for america..... He said OBL and SH had ties with one another... He said Iraqi was harboring terrorist....
Some of this could be seen as partially true, but taken all in context ...... its lies........
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
I thought the idea that SH was buying weapons material from africa had ALL be disproven............ that even the brits had discovered they were wrong??
No matter... that was not all he said in the SotU speech. He said america (us) had extensive proof of WMDs in Iraqi... He said we knew exactly were they were.... He said that this 'axis of evil' must be stopped before they attack america.... He said Iraqi represented a clear and present danger for america..... He said OBL and SH had ties with one another... He said Iraqi was harboring terrorist....
Some of this could be seen as partially true, but taken all in context ...... its lies........
k
AoM
Could you provide a link to where he said all that? Someone must have left it out of the copy of the SotU that I have.
-
Originally posted by SLO
ok ok I can't read this watermelon anymore.....
Skuzzy.....Dale did say DIPLOMATIC.:mad:
the good ol' US of A is the god send country to save us all.....fuggin morons.....your country was born WITH the help of the French.....your most note worthy STATUE is a gift from the French.
the world defeated communism.....but wait a second...China is still communist....so no victory there
2nd most spoken language in the world....French
some of the best Doctors and scientist are French.....
some french soldiers DIED defending against Terrorist....but to you....who gives a chit.
you rather secure OIL then History.....
2nd most sold book in the world is about a french....well Corsican....still french....Jean D'Arc was french....Both made England shake in there boots.
a country with over a 1000 years of history is gettin a lesson from 1 with less the 300 years...... :rolleyes:
when you say arrogance, ego.....your talking about americans my friend...not the french:aok
Paid back at least twice over with interest. Any cowering nation that bent over for the damn terrorists attacking them can come get their damn statue, I don't want it.
-
2nd most sold book in the world is about a french....well Corsican....still french....Jean D'Arc was french....Both made England shake in there boots.
Napoleon: Defeated at Waterloo by (mainly) the English and exiled to Elba.
Joan of Arc: Captured and burnt at the stake by the English.
There are better examples you could have picked, Slo!
Ravs:rolleyes:
-
post your copy marlet.. i'll point it out for you. make sure you get all 5k words too..
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
post your copy marlet.. i'll point it out for you. make sure you get all 5k words too..
k
AoM
Ahhh, just as I thought. You don't know what you're talking about. More unfounded accusations.
Hey, when you have a basis for your claims, feel free to come back and pick up where you left off.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, just as I thought. You don't know what you're talking about. More unfounded accusations.
Hey, when you have a basis for your claims, feel free to come back and pick up where you left off.
lol why then did we go to war w/ Iraqi??
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
lol why then did we go to war w/ Iraqi??
k
AoM
You made the accusation that the President lied to us. You then bolstered that claim with examples of what he said.
I'm calling bull****. I want to see it. Show me.
-
Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens, as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger.
We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation and freed a country from brutal oppression.
The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own.
America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We will be partners in rebuilding that country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai.
The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school.
Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan's new government. And we welcome the new minister of women's affairs, Dr. Sima Samar.
Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of our coalition and to the might of the United States military.
When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. And tonight, thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror.
The men and women of our armed forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves you will not escape the justice of this nation.
For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: "Dear Daddy, please take this to Heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again someday." Last month, at the grave of her husband, Micheal, a CIA officer and Marine who died in Mazar-e Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper fi, my love." Shannon is with us tonight.
Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Micheal and all who gave their lives for freedom.
Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos where they laugh about the loss of innocent life.
And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.
What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps. And so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested, yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk and America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.
Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.
Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere.
We now have troops in the Philippines helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.
My hope is that all nations will heed our call and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own.
Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.
-
Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack.
And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.
Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.
September 11 brought out the best in America and the best in this Congress, and I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home.
I am a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war, protect our people and create jobs in America, we must act first and foremost not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.
It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.
Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.
The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack.
Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad and increased vigilance at home.
My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism; emergency response; airport and border security; and improved intelligence.
We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters.
We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States.
Homeland security will make America not only stronger but in many ways better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs.
And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens. A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that airplane were alert, and as a result likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones.
Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security, the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the American people. To achieve these great national objectives -- to win the war, protect the homeland and revitalize our economy -- our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible way.
Americans who have lost their jobs need our help, and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. Yet American workers want more than unemployment checks. They want a steady paycheck.
-
When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties, Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller, Senator Judd Gregg. And I was so proud of our work I even had nice things to say about my friend Ted Kennedy.
There's more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom.
Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.
Good jobs depend on expanded trade. Selling into new markets creates new jobs, so I ask Congress to finally approve trade promotion authority.
On these two key issues, trade and energy, the House of Representatives has acted to create jobs and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation.
Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small, some thought it was too big. But when those checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right.
Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth, and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent.
The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend. For the sake of American workers, let's pass a stimulus package. Good jobs must be the aim of welfare reform. As we reauthorize these important reforms, we must always remember: The goal is to reduce dependency on government and offer every American the dignity of a job.
Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage, to approve an historic increase in spending for veterans' health and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs.
A good job job should lto security in retirement. I ask Congress to enact new safeguards for 401(k) and pension plans. Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails.
Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct.
Retirement security also depends upon keeping the commitments of Social Security, and we will. We must make Social Security financially stable and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them.
Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: productive farm policy, a cleaner environment, broader home ownership, especially among minorities and ways to encourage the good work of charities and faith-based groups.
I ask you to join me on these important domestic issues in the same spirit of cooperation we have applied to our war against terrorism.
During these last few months, I've been humbled and privileged to see the true character of this country in a time of testing. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people.
And I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis: our first lady, Laura Bush.
None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September 11th, yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate and more about the good we can do.
For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a Nation that serves goals larger than self. We have been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass.
My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation.
Many are already serving and I thank you. If you aren't sure how to help, I've got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps.
The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home, rebuilding our communities, and extending American compassion throughout the world. One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies ... volunteers to help police and fire departments, transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger.
Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison, and we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.
And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years, and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development, and education, and opportunity in the Islamic world.
This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity, a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know: We can overcome evil with greater good.
And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history -- with its centuries of learning, and tolerance, and progress.
America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture -- but America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance.
America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world -- including the Islamic world -- because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.
In this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with Russia, China, and India in ways we never have before to achieve peace and prosperity. In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, from Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom.
The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed.
Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together. Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. Many have discovered again that even in tragedy, especially in tragedy, God is near.
In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty -- that we have been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You made the accusation that the President lied to us. You then bolstered that claim with examples of what he said.
I'm calling bull****. I want to see it. Show me.
WMD.. where are they?? You find them for me.. i shutup....
Thats the proof.. thats all thats needed... thats his lie.............
k
AoM
-
Theres the state of the union address you referred to, Kappa.
Please cut and paste where the President lied to us as you have alleged.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Kierann wrote:
That should be simple enough to follow. WMD was but one excuse to execute #1. That was a mistake (using WMD intelligence from the UK), but it was a means to an end.
A means to an end? It was a lie by our president during a state of the union address before congress... a LIE....... call it what you want.
k
AoM
Did you mean a different STOU address?
-
Originally posted by kappa
WMD.. where are they?? You find them for me.. i shutup....
Thats the proof.. thats all thats needed... thats his lie.............
k
AoM
Could you point me to where he said that?
-
From the State of the Union address, 2002
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Did you mean a different STOU address?
See, this is the problem with liberals. Their hatred veils reality. They hear someone say something, then they repeat it. Someone else hears them, and THEY state it as fact. Then you have a million liberals stating it as fact.
No one bothers to get the real facts, they make up their own. Now, instead of saying "oops, I'm a retard", he continues to argue a point that even he knows to be false.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
See, this is the problem with liberals. Their hatred veils reality. They hear someone say something, then they repeat it. Someone else hears them, and THEY state it as fact. Then you have a million liberals stating it as fact.
No one bothers to get the real facts, they make up their own. Now, instead of saying "oops, I'm a retard", he continues to argue a point that even he knows to be false.
I pay much more respect to any person, no matter what their position when they simply say, "I was mistaken".
-
lol muck.. you stooge..... I just wanted to see if marlet would do it.. lmao but you did it for him.. thats great bro.. way to be a team player... are you holding his hand right now?? what is that your holding??
look, you guys can be ignorant feks all day... all year.. I dont care.. He said Iraqi had WMD, right? he said Iraqi posed an immediate threat to america, right? both are lies...
Show me WMDs and i shutup... what I said verbatum is not in the SotU address persay. But if you guys wanna stick your head in the sand and act like he said nothing... fine by me...
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
lol muck.. you stooge..... I just wanted to see if marlet would do it.. lmao but you did it for him.. thats great bro.. way to be a team player... are you holding his hand right now?? what is that your holding??
look, you guys can be ignorant feks all day... all year.. I dont care.. He said Iraqi had WMD, right? he said Iraqi posed an immediate threat to america, right? both are lies...
Show me WMDs and i shutup... what I said verbatum is not in the SotU address persay. But if you guys wanna stick your head in the sand and act like he said nothing... fine by me...
k
AoM
Again, you keep repeating the same thing over and over. Could you point to me where he said that?
-
This has become a pointless exercise. You can shut up or keep talking. It does not matter. You've been proven wrong.
-
Muck/marlet
Are you guys saying now that the president never said Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction??
just a yes he did or no he didnt is ok.. or whatever..
im just trying to clarify the spew for a nice restart..
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
Muck/marlet
Are you guys saying now that the president never said Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction??
just a yes he did or no he didnt is ok.. or whatever..
im just trying to clarify the spew for a nice restart..
k
AoM
YOU said he said that. In fact, you keep saying it over and over. Obviously, you must have information I don't. I'm asking you to point me towards the source. You said SotU. Ok, there's the SotU. Could you point it out for me?
-
lol marlet.. thats bs.. dont br a*****.. answer the question.... I have already said it was not in the SotU verbatim.....
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
lol marlet.. thats bs.. dont br a*****.. answer the question.... I have already said it was not in the SotU verbatim.....
k
AoM
So, you're admitting that your initial claims about what Bush said are indeed false, and you are wrong?
-
no.. im calling you a cowardly sob for ignoring my question........
k
AoM
-
everything i've said Bush said is true... what I have said however, is NOT in the SotU verbatum.......
but you are still a coward.............
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
no.. im calling you a cowardly sob for ignoring my question........
k
AoM
HAHAH, let's deal with one issue at a time. You can't simply avoid a question because you don't like it and skip to another. Well, you can, but that allow me to claim victory and duck out of the conversation.
Again, could you point me to the information you based your accusation on? You've already explained it wasn't where you said it was. So where is it?
-
Kappa:
A means to an end? It was a lie by our president during a state of the union address before congress... a LIE....... call it what you want.
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by Martlet
HAHAH, let's deal with one issue at a time. You can't simply avoid a question because you don't like it and skip to another. Well, you can, but that allow me to claim victory and duck out of the conversation.
Again, could you point me to the information you based your accusation on? You've already explained it wasn't where you said it was. So where is it?
answer me coward, and i answer you...... clearly its my turn to be answered.. 8)
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
no.. im calling you a cowardly sob for ignoring my question........
k
AoM
Ignore him guys, he's been known to make stuff up.
-
Originally posted by kappa
everything i've said Bush said is true... what I have said however, is NOT in the SotU verbatum.......
but you are still a coward.............
k
AoM
Your turn to be answered? You still haven't answered the intial question from 3 pages ago.
heh, when your defense boils down to "I'm wrong, but I'll never admit it" and name calling, then I can laugh and wave good-bye.
If you ever decide to give substance to your accusations, feel free to post it.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Kappa:
A means to an end? It was a lie by our president during a state of the union address before congress... a LIE....... call it what you want.
k
AoM
Muck.. the president DID in the SotU give a false idea that Iraqi was trying to obtain WMD... If you denie this, you have no hope... The cia new as early as 9 weeks prior to the SotU the evidence used was not true......
Here (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/uranium.html) if it helps..
k
AoM
-
what question 3 pages ago marlet?? make it good.. im running outta time for you..
k
AoM
-
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
Jan. 29, 2003
Is this the Statement you are referring to, Kappa?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Muck.. the president DID in the SotU give a false idea that Iraqi was trying to obtain WMD... If you denie this, you have no hope... The cia new as early as 9 weeks prior to the SotU the evidence used was not true......
Here (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/uranium.html) if it helps..
k
AoM
That's an OpEd.
I asked you to show me the substance behind this statement:
No matter... that was not all he said in the SotU speech. He said america (us) had extensive proof of WMDs in Iraqi... He said we knew exactly were they were.... He said that this 'axis of evil' must be stopped before they attack america.... He said Iraqi represented a clear and present danger for america..... He said OBL and SH had ties with one another... He said Iraqi was harboring terrorist....
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ignore him guys, he's been known to make stuff up.
fu iron.. i admit when im wrong.. if you had any substance, you might have just said that..
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
fu iron.. i admit when im wrong.. if you had any substance, you might have just said that..
k
AoM
You aren't admitting you're wrong now.
-
Originally posted by kappa
fu iron.. i admit when im wrong.. if you had any substance, you might have just said that..
k
AoM
You never would have admitted you were wrong if I hadn't badgered you about it. And your admission included an insult which at the time I chose to ignore. I'm only sharing that with these guys now to tell them they are wasting their time on you.
-
Only the most obtuse and dishonest of people could come on these boards and state that Bush never used the threat of Iraqi WMD and linking the 9/11 attack to Iraq to gain permission to invade Iraq. Iraq was constantly portrayed as a hot bead of WMD programs and a focus of the anti terror campaign. It still is by the talking heads of the administration. For brain washed neo con thugs to come on here now and say
"Bush didnt say it and its not his fault if you took that meaning" shows the depths that people will go to in trying to preserve some semblence of rationality in what has proven to be the greatest and most destructive lie of our new century.
All though Bush was always careful to mention that its a hard road ahead we could certainly have expected 6 months after the total control of that country was gained by the US to see....
Evidence of WMD in some form. Some hint of proof that Iraq was not complying....none
Evidence of the 1000s of mass graves that were filled by the bath party. Some kind of collaborative reports from Iraq that it was as horrible as sold.
Evidence of some kind of support for the US from Iraqis. You would think that the US administration could find some story to show progress.
Evidence of some kind of non palistinian international terror link with Iraq. Any link more then a cup of coffee.
Nothing exists to support these central tennents of the invasion of Iraq. Nothing.
No WMD traces at all. The only mass graves were dead from the 91 uprising instigated and then abandoned by the US, terrorist is now a term that is used to apply to resistance insurgence fighters, and the Iraqis are showing no support at all for the US occupation.
The more clear that becomes the more silly and mean and bitter the cheerleaders of that invasion on this board become. Searching their right wing BBSs for new ways to twist the obvios and discredit the truth with ad honim after ad honim.
-
marlet.. clearly your just a child that has recently learned to type.. hardly worth time as you know not how to play the game... go ahead and post more to mine.. its ok.. i'll understand you have nothing better to do than give one sided retorical post that offer nothing but propaganda and personal spew and always refuse to answer any question posed that might be contrary to your opinion. Learn to play in the box right and perhaps, one day, you might reach the level you see yourself on..
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Nothing exists to support these central tennents of the invasion of Iraq. Nothing.
What were the "central tennents" of the invasion of Iraq?
-
Originally posted by kappa
marlet.. clearly your just a child that has recently learned to type.. hardly worth time as you know not how to play the game... go ahead and post more to mine.. its ok.. i'll understand you have nothing better to do than give one sided retorical post that offer nothing but propaganda and personal spew and always refuse to answer any question posed that might be contrary to your opinion. Learn to play in the box right and perhaps, one day, you might reach the level you see yourself on..
k
AoM
Ahhh, so expecting people to provide evidence of the extremely innacurate claims they made is "unfair" play? A true liberal debate. When everyone realizes you are lying, and they know YOU know you are lying, insult them and run away.
I'm not offering propaganda. I'm asking you to back up yours.
How convenient. Well, since we can say what ever we want and not be expected to admit when it's completely false or prove it's truth, I might as well admit that I know the true cause of the War in Iraq:
Al Gore invented the War in Iraq. Yes, it's true. I saw the plans tattooed on the back of Tippers head.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, so expecting people to provide evidence of the extremely innacurate claims they made is "unfair" play?
How convenient. Well, since we can say what ever we want and not be expected to admit when it's completely false or prove it's truth, I might as well admit that I know the true cause of the War in Iraq:
U lie like a dog.. or bush...... I admitted what I said was not in the SotU verbatum..
YOU could not answer my question.. thats my 'fair play' issue as you state it...
I asked only 1...
1. Did our president say Iraqi had WMDs??
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
U lie like a dog.. or bush...... I admitted what I said was not in the SotU verbatum..
YOU could not answer my question.. thats my 'fair play' issue as you state it...
k
AoM
If it isn't in the SotU like you said, then where is it? You must have gotten your facts somewhere. That was the original question. Where did you get that information?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If it isn't in the SotU like you said, then where is it? You must have gotten your facts somewhere. That was the original question. Where did you get that information?
lol ok.. nice game..
You dispute me?? Give me evidence he didnt say it...
k
AoM
-
I think AKIron nailed it. Out.
-
I found these excerpts on the net:
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Condoleeza Rice, CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
Ravs
-
Originally posted by kappa
lol ok.. nice game..
You dispute me?? Give me evidence he didnt say it...
k
AoM
I already have. This whole thread is a testament to the fact that you made a claim, then couldn't provide the substance you based it on. Why? Because you made it up. You made up facts to prove your argument, then stomped your feet when you were called on it.
-
Here (http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/25/int1.htm)
Here (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/uranium.html)
here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-15-bush-weapons_x.htm)
here (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071103.asp)
Here, lol a president blaming an aid...... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/iraq/main564877.shtml)
here panzy democrates.. (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_15_03.html)
here (http://www.supportnospin.com/propagandawar.htm)
HERE the whitehouse admits.. lol (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=866)
I guess I could keep going... but why, this, im sure is not enough..
k
AoM
-
I got them all from here:
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/iraq2.htm
Ravs
-
Originally posted by kappa
Here (http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/25/int1.htm)
Here (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/uranium.html)
here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-15-bush-weapons_x.htm)
here (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071103.asp)
Here, lol a president blaming an aid...... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/iraq/main564877.shtml)
here panzy democrates.. (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_15_03.html)
here (http://www.supportnospin.com/propagandawar.htm)
HERE the whitehouse admits.. lol (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=866)
I guess I could keep going... but why, this, im sure is not enough..
k
AoM
You do realize that every single one of those links supports your claim about as much as a link to the Sean Cassidy Official Fan Club Webpage, don't you?
-
Originally posted by ravells
I got them all from here:
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/iraq2.htm
Ravs
Ahhh, of course you did.
I checked the first couple that you took off that satirical website. CNN has the quotes listed completely different. I'm assuming the rest are too.
And with that, I've got better things to do than chase down misquotes and blatant lies.
Feel free to print them, though. My girlfriend isn't going to be home until late. Maybe I'll tackle your next pack later since I have nothing else to do.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You do realize that every single one of those links supports your claim about as much as a link to the Sean Cassidy Official Fan Club Webpage, don't you?
lol thats right.. play it off.. that defense is right up there with the Chewbakka Defense. expected nothing different..
k
AoM
no more for you martlet (just realized).. post something with substance...
-
Ravs post is compelling. WTG. Good quotes.
Kappa has one good article there, from CBS news. I won't bother reading anything from the "Green Party" newsletter.
So GWB said the above. Very well. If he knew these statements were in deed false, he is lying. If he did not, he is merely guilty of receiving and not properly verifying poor intelligence, a mistake a man of his position cannot afford to make.
Now, answer me this. Why would he say these things, if he had every intention of invading Iraq, knowing full well the eyes of the world would be upon him to produce the WMDs and other items, if he knew they did not exist?
-
Martlet, can you link to that CNN site that has the quotes Rav posted. I'd like to read them in context.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, of course you did.
I checked the first couple that you took off that satirical website. CNN has the quotes listed completely different. I'm assuming the rest are too.
And with that, I've got better things to do than chase down misquotes and blatant lies.
Feel free to print them, though. My girlfriend isn't going to be home until late. Maybe I'll tackle your next pack later since I have nothing else to do.
LMAO martlet.. you got NOTHING!!!!???
run along now.. fly fly fly... fly fly fly...
I cant believe some punk would just come on the board devoid of thought, deny current events, and run away... Figures..
ya i can..........
Really, i just wanted an anwser to my question put to him...
k
AoM
-
(maniacal laughter fades as everyone cautiously backs away from the raving lun... er...evil genius)
-
Martlett,
Presidents and Prime Ministers of Western Democracies rarely 'lie' in politics. They present a certain version of the facts which justify a course of action they propose to take. More often than not it is a question of shades of grey and not blacks and whites.
You asked for attributable sources about Bush using the existence of WMD to persuade the public to support the war and that was the best I could find in the short time I spent looking. I do agree that the site that they are taken from is an 'anti-bush' site, so there may be a context issue. That said, it now appears to be incumbent on you to point out those context issues according to your own rules of engagement on this point. Could you point me to the CNN site which reports the quotes differently please?
I am sure of the following though:
a. Tony Blair said in terms that there were WMD in Iraq. It was also said, (I am not sure by whom but it was by someone in Blair's cabinet it not Blair himself) that these could be released 'within 45 minutes' of the order being given. I remember this clearly because I was on the fence about going to war and it was this argument that persuaded me that going to war was the right thing to do.
b. There was a BBC world service broadcast in which they were interviewing ex-intelligence types who were livid that intelligence had been used in this way. They said that the use of intelligence in this fashion (cherry picking facts out of context which helped the pro-war argument) had set back intelligence credibility enormously.
c. Frankly, I think that put at its highest in favour of Bush/Blair, on the intelligence they had, neither Bush nor Blair knew for certain whether there were WMD in Iraq and made a judgment call. That judgment call is increasingly looking like a bad one.
d. I am more inclined to believe that the intelligence as they saw it suggested that there probably were no WMD in Iraq, but because so many of their own electorate were wavering (like myself) they had to come up with solid argument for war and hope like hell that either WMD were found or failing that something else would turn up or failing that they could snow the issue.
e. I like your idea:
No one bothers to get the real facts, they make up their own. Now, instead of saying "oops, I'm a retard", he continues to argue a point that even he knows to be false.
Somehow I don't think we are ever going to hear Bush and Blair say ' oops, I'm a retard'. - would make good telly though!
Ravs
-
-France said even before that iraqi gunboat war that Saddam had WMD. The difference is that according to the french intelligence, it was not an immediate threat for the neighbours of Iraq and even less for the West. Murdoch's propaganda portraying Saddam like the new Hitler, rolling in the streets of Manhattan with his 40 years old T-55s shipped by the two fishing boats of the Iraqi Navy is simply ridiculous. ANYONE can make a chemical attack in the US, whenever they want. Bush sure should invade the whole planet if wants to avoid all the threat.
-France is 1500 years old, not 1000. It was founded by the baptism of Clovis I in 496.
-Sure France had interests in Iraq, and its natural that Iraq pays the debt that it owns to France. They've got enough petrol to refund us. Iraq owes me money, as a taxpayer. And it's natural for any country to see badly an US rule Iraq, because of the well know US tendancy of monopolizing the oversea markets. So far, the majority of the markets have been given to US companies. Want to give them freedom à l'américaine? Heh, sounds like UK or France coming in the kingdom of the Great King Humgulugulu, shooting twice with their gunboat, and selling them their mirrors and pearls, and bringing them, of course, "civilization". The day you'll understand that exporting values is one of the most anti-democractic thing. Europeans did it between the XVIth and XXth century, you know what happened. Now that the americans enjoy imperialism, they're doing the same bull****. Let Iraq decide by itself what it wants to do, don't act like generous idiots, because you're like an elephant in a porcelain shop.
-
I'de like to meet you guys on the left....which one of you will make the con this coming year?
-
Cerceuilvolant,
Ok, a reasonable response...
As long as you are clear France was looking out for itself, not merely acting benevolently. Personally, I would support doing something about Iraq because of its history of aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, in particular its stance against Israel. Wanna guess how fast that nuclear powderkeg gets lit if Iraq tries anything against Israel? Syria and Saudia Arabia know better, but Iraq started sending missiles over during Gulf War I. They'll never know what a favor we did them by persuading the Israelis from seeking retribution themselves.
-
Originally posted by SLO
ok ok I can't read this watermelon anymore.....
Skuzzy.....Dale did say DIPLOMATIC.:mad:
the good ol' US of A is the god send country to save us all.....fuggin morons.....your country was born WITH the help of the French.....your most note worthy STATUE is a gift from the French.
the world defeated communism.....but wait a second...China is still communist....so no victory there
2nd most spoken language in the world....French
some of the best Doctors and scientist are French.....
some french soldiers DIED defending against Terrorist....but to you....who gives a chit.
you rather secure OIL then History.....
2nd most sold book in the world is about a french....well Corsican....still french....Jean D'Arc was french....Both made England shake in there boots.
a country with over a 1000 years of history is gettin a lesson from 1 with less the 300 years...... :rolleyes:
when you say arrogance, ego.....your talking about americans my friend...not the french:aok
We were helped by the French King. What happened to him?
China is about as communist now as Walmart.
As I remenber, the second most spoken language is English. The first is Madarin Chinese.
French soldiers have nothing to be ashamed of. As usual the politicians are to blame. They have the power and call the shots.
The oil in Mexico and Canada is closer and cheaper to just buy for the American needs than a war of conquest. **** there is oil off shore of the USA and in Alaska that only politics is stopping the use of.
America didn't just appear from the mist, or are you talking about the age of governments? Anyway the governmnent of the USA has been pretty stable and successful the last couple of hundred years. How about the government of France?
The USA dominates much of the world in many ways, but I'm just a delusional American.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I'de like to meet you guys on the left....which one of you will make the con this coming year?
who's the left side guys?? am i left side b/c I feel out president has been lying to us?? just wondering.. no debate.. 8)
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
who's the left side guys?? am i left side b/c I feel out president has been lying to us?? just wondering.. no debate.. 8)
k
AoM
If you don't know then you are probably on the left.
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Let Iraq decide by itself what it wants to do, don't act like generous idiots, because you're like an elephant in a porcelain shop.
after reading this thread i only agree with this and would like to add that for people who have a smart debate, you guys suck at spelling and grammar :p
-
Originally posted by zroostr
after reading this thread i only agree with this and would like to add that for people who have a smart debate, you guys suck at spelling and grammar :p
Unlike your mastery of punctuation. :p
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If you don't know then you are probably on the left.
If you dont know... then YOU dont know............
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by zroostr
after reading this thread i only agree with this and would like to add that for people who have a smart debate, you guys suck at spelling and grammar :p
Il faut bien dire que l'on part avec un handicap initial :)
C'est sur que l'on fera moins de fautes en utilisant un langage civilisé (avec des accents et tout ce qui fait le charme d'une vraie langue :p ) mais bon faut bien qu'on traduise ...
Sinon il y en a qui ne vont pas arriver à suivre ...
-
Originally posted by kappa
If you dont know... then YOU dont know............
k
AoM
Well, the right is typified by stong beliefs, values, and morals. The left isn't.
-
I think this one is done.
How do you say that in French?
-
Holy bat guano, Batman !
This thread was growing faster than I could read it.
LOL!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, the right is typified by stong beliefs, values, and morals. The left isn't.
Thats right.. Is the right also known to judge, stereotype, and take self-rightous positions?
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
jeeesuzzz cchhhhhrrrrrriiisste!! Popular opinion matters null ina democracy now?
If it walks and talks like a fascist..... go figure...
k
AoM
FU Kappa - if you are gonna quote me then quote the whole damn thing. But lying is typical of your kind so I'm not too upset.
-
lol grun.. what'd I miss? that was not your sentence? sorry if I typed it wrong..
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
Thats right.. Is the right also known to judge, stereotype, and take self-rightous positions?
k
AoM
So, I guess you did know which you were after all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm not too upset.
Damm :( agent Kappa failed ...
check that Cuba thread I've posted a present for you :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, I guess you did know which you were after all.
lol what a punk..........
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thrawn- since when is governing done with popular opinion polls?
Does every decision have to be popular? Does that mean presidents avoid making the tough decisions, and only make popular decisions? What does that mean for leadership?
This was the full text of my post kappa. I think it makes it clear I'm not advocating fascism. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
This was the full text of my post kappa. I think it makes it clear I'm not advocating fascism. :)
my apologies....
k
AoM
-
Thanks!
-
I may be there Rude maybe we can hook up and you can straighten me out on all this.
-
Makes me laugh to see Americans get on their high horse over terrorism. Funny how it wasn't an issue when innocent peasants in Nigaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador etc were getting topped by US trained deathsquads. You make vague accusations of Iraq harbouring terrorists yet have people like Orlando Bosch living it up in Florida.
Just admit it, you only started giving a rat's bellybutton about terrorism when americans started being the targets. US hypocrisy at it's finest. :rolleyes:
-
What did your country do about Nigaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador? Nothing? I thought so.
Pot, Kettle.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Makes me laugh to see Americans get on their high horse over terrorism. Funny how it wasn't an issue when innocent peasants in Nigaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador etc were getting topped by US trained deathsquads. You make vague accusations of Iraq harbouring terrorists yet have people like Orlando Bosch living it up in Florida.
Just admit it, you only started giving a rat's bellybutton about terrorism when americans started being the targets. US hypocrisy at it's finest. :rolleyes:
You dont know wtf your talking about... we didnt train one soldier w/the intention he'd be in a GD death sqaud jerk off.
As far as Iraq is concerned... 400,000 bodies in mass graves. Sp stfu you ****ing POS. That ALONE is a Golly-geen good reason to be there.
How about all the "never again" **** the world spewed after the holcaust? Yet we let it happen ovewr and over and over... this time we actualy might of saved the next 600,000 even if it wasnt the prime objective...it was still a GOOD thing.
You ****ing tard's that seem to ignore all the sh(* that we have found over there keep sticking your GD head in the sand. Your ****ing pathatic sorry excuses for humanity.
-
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB11/docs/05-04.htm
U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Guatemala Viron Vaky :
U.S. Values
This leads to an aspect I personally find the most disturbing of all -- that we have not been honost with ourselves. We have condoned counter-terror ; we may even in effect have encouraged or blessed it.
End of Cut n Paste.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not terrorists, freedom fighters... :aok ;)
Some nasty business there in SA, no doubt, but better than the spread of communism to add to their preexisting misery.
Geewiz i don't think it can get more pathetic than that. :aok
-
Part of it was sarcasm - I think the debate about terrorist vs freedom fighter is a vital point in diffdering perspectives so I kid about a lot.
The thing about communism is no joke, its simply the worst idea ever and I will not support it ideologically. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Jack55
We were helped by the French King. What happened to him?
China is about as communist now as Walmart.
As I remenber, the second most spoken language is English. The first is Madarin Chinese.
French soldiers have nothing to be ashamed of. As usual the politicians are to blame. They have the power and call the shots.
The oil in Mexico and Canada is closer and cheaper to just buy for the American needs than a war of conquest. **** there is oil off shore of the USA and in Alaska that only politics is stopping the use of.
America didn't just appear from the mist, or are you talking about the age of governments? Anyway the governmnent of the USA has been pretty stable and successful the last couple of hundred years. How about the government of France?
The USA dominates much of the world in many ways, but I'm just a delusional American.
1 - ya a Walmart with nuke's
2 - wrong....check again....1st is English(also known as the international language....why do you think ALL pilots use English to communicate....and yes...even the Chinese pilots use English).....2nd is French....everyone thinks its spanish....wrong
3 - Totally agree with you....what pisses me off is the numb nuts on these boards shotin there mouths off at the FRENCH....its all politics....but these morons and there 1 brain cell like to blame a whole country....never disagree with a right wing american
4 - as for OIL....sorry bud....Canada WILL decide for itself....you guys can do whatever with Alaska....but there is not enough.....hence the Iraqi debacle.
5 - 1500 years compared to 250 years.....sorry not gonna
6 - the last comment proves my point.....look here....you dominate just about nothing....its your EGO that makes you think you do.....9/11 didn't teach ya anything I see:rolleyes:
-
Over one billion people in China and nearby countries speak Mandarin.
Hindi, English, Spanish and Russian round out the top five.
-
http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm
There are various arguments at this site, none say that french is the second most spoken language - hoever a summation says it may be the second most "inflential" after english.
-
Quote:
" the last comment proves my point.....look here....you dominate just about nothing....its your EGO that makes you think you do.....9/11 didn't teach ya anything I see"
Oh, i wouldn't say that. 9/11 "taught" us that there are large number of jealous, stupid, and ignorant Euro Trash and Leftist Canucks happy to see Americans die and/or fail.
We just go on with the "dominant" program with a flip of the to the likes of you...
C.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Over one billion people in China and nearby countries speak Mandarin.
Hindi, English, Spanish and Russian round out the top five.
Native speaker only it don't show the influence of the language.
:eek: :eek: :eek: see GRUN's post
I guess it's what happen when you have a meeting and come back to post your answer :D
-
Originally posted by SLO
5 - 1500 years compared to 250 years.....sorry not gonna
In response to this:
America didn't just appear from the mist, or are you talking about the age of governments? Anyway the governmnent of the USA has been pretty stable and successful the last couple of hundred years. How about the government of France?
The Government of the USA can be argued to start in 1776, but probably more properly 1787 when the Constitution was ratified.
The Government of France at the time was a monarchy, which ended via madam guillotine. Then after Napoleon, some time passed thru Napoleon (what was it III) and into the latter half of the 1800's before a stable democracy was formed.
The Government of the USA therefore predates the Government of France by nearly a century.
It is quite astonishing to realize that the USA is one of the oldest governments in existance today. Only a very few predate 1787.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is quite astonishing to realize that the USA is one of the oldest governments in existance today. Only a very few predate 1787.
Yep. Thats why all the euro BS about young america is so funny, not to mention that it was america that rebuilt half of europe in the past 50 years after these bratty little punk counties blew themselves up twice over their teenager pride and vanity...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The sad part is that its true.
Unbelievable.
I mean look at this (from the same article) :
"The French were among the first to note that terrorism was a global movement," he said. But before they came to this realization, they floundered. In the 1980s, a wave of bombings struck Paris targets, including department stores and subways. Not only were the French unable to prevent these attacks, they were also clueless about the perpetrators and motives. At first they thought that domestic neo-Nazi militants were behind an assault on a synagogue in a wealthy section of Paris. Only belatedly did they realize that responsibility lay with terrorists from the Middle East.
The French had descended to this low point through their adoption of what Shapiro calls the "sanctuary doctrine" -- a morally repugnant effort to isolate France from international terrorism by taking a neutral stance toward global terrorist groups. The idea was to give the terrorists no reason to attack France. (Better they hit someone else.)
It didn't work. Other countries actively battling terrorism, such as Spain and Israel, were understandably outraged that France was sheltering their enemies. Some splinter terrorist bands failed to recognize France as a "sanctuary" and targeted French interests anyway. And amid the Paris attacks, the French public demanded a get-tough approach.
Nothing personal against our french AH friends but .... there are quite a lot italian members of the "Red Brigades" (bloody terrorists) and other extreme left groups in France. Protected by the french law and government. Italian judges cannot do anything against it. France simply refuses to send them in Italy to the court. It is really frustrating. So close to us and we are not able to catch them.
We should call Tsahal and let them do the work for us.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In response to this:
The Government of the USA can be argued to start in 1776, but probably more properly 1787 when the Constitution was ratified.
The Government of France at the time was a monarchy, which ended via madam guillotine. Then after Napoleon, some time passed thru Napoleon (what was it III) and into the latter half of the 1800's before a stable democracy was formed.
The Government of the USA therefore predates the Government of France by nearly a century.
It is quite astonishing to realize that the USA is one of the oldest governments in existance today. Only a very few predate 1787.
It depend how you see history of France ...
as a Nation ,as a from of governement , as a formed territorial unity ,as a culture ...
For me France either started in 987 with the Capet or 600 wit the settlement of the Franks from which France derives its name.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
" the last comment proves my point.....look here....you dominate just about nothing....its your EGO that makes you think you do.....9/11 didn't teach ya anything I see"
Oh, i wouldn't say that. 9/11 "taught" us that there are large number of jealous, stupid, and ignorant Euro Trash and Leftist Canucks happy to see Americans die and/or fail.
We just go on with the "dominant" program with a flip of the to the likes of you...
C.
cabby's kind that make you guys look not to bright.....
leftist canuck.....ignorant euro trash.....jealous stupid.
go ask mommy to change your diaper now please, ya kinda smell funny
-
Originally posted by SLO
cabby's kind that make you guys look not to bright.....
leftist canuck.....ignorant euro trash.....jealous stupid.
go ask mommy to change your diaper now please, ya kinda smell funny
Where could he got that idea - surely not from civil sophisticaded french canadian posts like this one...
better for me to see it, so then I can decide for myself.....then hearing it from your filthy lips and your right wing propaganda machine.
sorry mart....but I accept the truth...be it Hell on earth or beautiful blue skies.
WAR sucks.....and seeing it from only 1 side(which is yours) tends to make me constipated.....
being objective is knowing full well both sides of the coin....and seeing it tends to make you think twice before making WAR you ****in moron....
if it was only me.....i'd show you EVERY american soldier dead...stick it right there in your face.....hopefully you'll get BAD really bad dreams.....then you'll develope a brain.....and say 'hell....lets compromise instead of makin war'
BTW SLO how do your posts make french canadians look?
-
Grun, you ought to warn him before you flip that mirror in his face.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Grun, you ought to warn him before you flip that mirror in his face.
No worries Kieran!
I'm sure SLO will be along shortly to enlighten us all how his post I quoted from is much different and thereore not utterly embarassing to him in general or in this case in particular...
-
self declared patriots are universaly dispicable people.
-
Originally posted by SLO
1 - ya a Walmart with nuke's
2 - wrong....check again....1st is English(also known as the international language....why do you think ALL pilots use English to communicate....and yes...even the Chinese pilots use English).....2nd is French....everyone thinks its spanish....wrong
3 - Totally agree with you....what pisses me off is the numb nuts on these boards shotin there mouths off at the FRENCH....its all politics....but these morons and there 1 brain cell like to blame a whole country....never disagree with a right wing american
4 - as for OIL....sorry bud....Canada WILL decide for itself....you guys can do whatever with Alaska....but there is not enough.....hence the Iraqi debacle.
5 - 1500 years compared to 250 years.....sorry not gonna
6 - the last comment proves my point.....look here....you dominate just about nothing....its your EGO that makes you think you do.....9/11 didn't teach ya anything I see:rolleyes:
Cool. Can I make up facts like this that have no basis in reality? The country of France is 1500 years old, french is the second most spoken language in the world? hehe.
Ok how about these:
The first microchip actually weighted 15 lbs.
If a grasshopper was as big as a human it would eat 300 lbs of grass a day and could jump the distance from Chicago to Tampa.
The American game of football was invented by a Chinese peasent in 1236 BC.
Most French people actually shower 3 times a day. They only smell bad because the water there has so much sulphur in it.
-
Originally posted by batdog
You dont know wtf your talking about... we didnt train one soldier w/the intention he'd be in a GD death sqaud jerk off.
As far as Iraq is concerned... 400,000 bodies in mass graves. Sp stfu you ****ing POS. That ALONE is a Golly-geen good reason to be there.
How about all the "never again" **** the world spewed after the holcaust? Yet we let it happen ovewr and over and over... this time we actualy might of saved the next 600,000 even if it wasnt the prime objective...it was still a GOOD thing.
You ****ing tard's that seem to ignore all the sh(* that we have found over there keep sticking your GD head in the sand. Your ****ing pathatic sorry excuses for humanity.
link to 400 000 bodies in mass graves please.
why dont you do a net search for "school of the americas"
clip
An indictment of Henry Kissinger for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes would include (but not be confined to) the following.
VIETNAM: Kissinger scuttled peace talks in 1968, paving the way for Richard Nixon's victory in the presidential race. Half the battle deaths in Vietnam took place between 1968 and 1972, not to mention the millions of civilians throughout Indochina who were killed.
CAMBODIA: Kissinger persuaded Nixon to widen the war with massive bombing of Cambodia and Laos. No one had suggested we go to war with either of these countries. By conservative estimates, the U.S. killed 600,000 civilians in Cambodia and another 350,000 in Laos.
BANGLADESH: Using weapons supplied by the U.S., General Yahya Khan overthrew the democratically elected government and murdered at least half a million civilians in 1971. In the White House, the National Security Council wanted to condemn these actions. Kissinger refused. Amid the killing, Kissinger thanked Khan for his "delicacy and tact."
CHILE: Kissinger helped to plan the 1973 U.S.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Salvador Allende and the assassination of General René Schneider. Right-wing general Augusto Pinochet then took over. Moderates fled for their lives. Hit men, financed by the CIA, tracked down Allende supporters and killed them. These attacks included the car bombing of Allende's foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, and an aide, Ronni Moffitt, at Sheridan Circle in downtown Washington.
EAST TIMOR: In 1975 President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met with Indonesia's corrupt strongman Suharto. Kissinger told reporters the U.S. wouldn't recognize the tiny country of East Timor, which had recently won independence from the Dutch. Within hours Suharto launched an invasion, killing, by some estimates, 200,000 civilians.
clip
-
Whats that got to do with a microchip that weighs 15 lbs?
-
First it would be silly to say Italy is 2400 years old because of the Roman Empire and Egypt is 3000 years old because they are not. Countries are only as old as their current political system is. If you claim a country is as old as the culture or some other obscure intangible then you are as incorrect as saying that your recently incorporated cleaning business is actually 30 years old because you have been cleaning your room since then.
Second I have lived in Asia and Africa and travelled extensively through out the world, so I know first hand that French is spoken rarely outside of France and some recent former colonies. If you had to rely on french to communicate you would be helpless. I even worked for a French company and they did not even attempt to conduct business in french outside of France. I am sure people claim that french is still spoken widely in Vietnam. However if you go there you will find that no one speaks it.
Besides what kind of nonsense is "French is the second most widely spoken second language?"
English is the universal language and after that the next most spoken language would be Manderian and then perhaps Hindi. French is a dieing language.
-
For me France either started in 987 with the Capet or 600 wit the settlement of the Franks from which France derives its name.
The Franks settled in the Netherlands/Rhine valley during the Ist century AC, the first sources saying it was a kingdom (different from the other germanic tribes as its members were freemen, where the word Frank come from, as members of the tribe had not the right to enslave each other, unlike in the others) come from the IIIrd century, and its penetration in the Roman Empire was in the IVth century.
496 is considered as the fundation of France, even if Clovis was crowned before, because this is when he got baptisted, uniting forever the kingdom to the christianism. That's also under his reign that the frankish kingdom took its modern shape, by increasing its size by 3 or 4, by conquering the last roman kingdom in Gaul & the Burgund & Wizigoth ones:
(http://parlange.free.fr/images/carte_fin_gaule_romaine.jpeg)
To the share of the kingdom at the death of Clovis:
(http://parlange.free.fr/images/carte_royaume_franc_511.jpeg)
The history of a nation can not be considered by its political system. Mao tried to make beleive that nothing happened before 1949 with his cultural revolution in the 70's. The culture, interpretation of the world comes from the history of the country, whatever its political system was.
The oldest european nations (in the modern sense) are UK & France, that were the firsts to have a centralized state, and who forged their national identity (abandonning the regionnal/feudal one) in the XIII-XIVth centuries.
The US may have the longest uninterrupted democracy, right, but the US are basically a Switzerland surrounded by 5000 km wide oceans, and nothing really happens, just a civil war, once, and it was founded on a new basis, it didn't have ten centuries of monarchy in its back, with all its cultural, philosophical & political heritage. Europe is small, overcrowded, and was at war 70% of the time. The european regimes were highly influenced by the foreign affairs.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Part of it was sarcasm - I think the debate about terrorist vs freedom fighter is a vital point in diffdering perspectives so I kid about a lot.
The thing about communism is no joke, its simply the worst idea ever and I will not support it ideologically. Sorry.
Oh i was wrong it does get more pathethic and hypocritical.:aok
-
It is probably correct to say that in terms of 'international political importance' French is probably second only to English - Many international treaties are legally accepted as 'original' in the English and French Language. In some cases (such as the Warsaw Convention which regulates the liabilities regarding International transport by air), the original treaty is drafted in French.
However the original post said that French was the second most spoken language in the world (which it is not) ... it's a bit like saying WMD and then when you have been found out saying WMD programmes.
However the influence of French as an international language of commerce is pretty negligible when compared to English.
As to how long a 'state' has been in existence, that argument can run and run...it all depends on your definition. Do you look at the type of government it has? A common language? Cultural norms and cohesion? There is no 'right' answer.
It is a little saddening that virtually every political discussion on these boards, regardless of the title ends up with a 'guns vs. no guns, French bashing, liberal vs. republican polemic.
From what I can see, many of the US posters on this board feel isolated in that their country gets blamed for all the world's current ills, and the French posters on the board feel isolated because they have to carry their UN veto around their necks like an albatross.
It's a pity that this board which brings so many different nationalities together is being used to vent invective rather than to foster some global understanding with an open mind.
Ravs.
-
It's a pity that this board which brings so many different nationalities together is being used to vent invective rather than to foster some global understanding with an open mind.
Ravs.
How dare you try to ruin this BB with that type of garbage!
-
Oooops! Sorry....won't happen again!
F***kwit! :D
Ahhh I'm feeling better now!
Ravs :)
-
Cerceuilvolant je la connais notre histoire mais si je fait pas la version simplifié il y en a plein qui vont pas suivre :D
French posters on the board feel isolated because they have to carry their UN veto around their necks like an albatross.
What Veto ?
-
This one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845867.stm
Have you been living in a cave for the last year or so or is there another French Veto I don't know about?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Unlike your mastery of punctuation. :p
touche (http://1badjedi.freewebspace.com/New%20Smileez/Cool/sasmokin.gif)
-
French Veto Threat....my apologies Straffo.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
This one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845867.stm
Have you been living in a cave for the last year or so or is there another French Veto I don't know about?
Ravs
naaa :)
I was in the O'club fighting ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
How dare you try to ruin this BB with that type of garbage!
:rofl
-
Well, Slo...at least your smileys are coherent....
Ravs :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What did your country do about Nigaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador? Nothing? I thought so.
Pot, Kettle.
Its what they didnt do that is more telling.
They didnt undermine democracy or send death squads to those countries....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is of course pure BS. Are you saying Russia is a 12 year old country? LOL! You've got to be kidding!
PEOPLE make countries, not governments. Governments may change, but nations seldom do.
Funny I was brought up at school to learn that there was no Russia. It was the USSR and contained a huge chuck of eastern europe that is now a mix match of new countries. I would say that Russia as it now exists is a new country.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~mariefrance/map.jpg)
These are the nations with French as their first language, plus a list of the various regions in the world with pockets of French speaking populations. As you can see Vietnam isn't even mentioned.
English and French are international languages, Mandarin Chinese is not. [/B]
Your map proves my point perfectly. BTW Canada does not speak French as a first language as your maps flags indicate and Quebec is not a country. I live in Canada. I know where french is spoken and where it is not. Despite being manditory in schools for over 35 years most of Canada has no idea how to speak french. Outside of Quebec more people in Canada can speak Mandarin than speak french.
Now look at your map. It indicate that the main french speaking countries are a bunch of basket case places in Africa. Guess where I used to work and travel? Yes right in the middle of them. Now your map would indicate that French is the main language for those countries. Guess what? The main language is a mix of tribel dialects and french is really only spoken by the corrupt elite class. Most of the working business class speak English or Arabic or Chinese as they are mostly non african. Now that France does not control those countries the use of french is dieing in them as the next generation is learning english.
I lived in Louisiana for a while as well. I do not remember one person who spoke to me in french the year I lived there. But your map indicates it is still a popular language.
As far a Mandarin not being a universial language guess what. I have lived in Africa Singapore Burnei Indonesia the US and Canada and there is a sizable minority in each of those countries that speak it. I would guess that with the exception of the African countries more people spoke Mandarin in each of those places than french. Now who is more important in the world. Singapore or the whole basket of African countries on your map. Mandarin is now being largely learned in Hong Kong as well. I am even thinking of taking lessons in it as I travel though Asia quite a bit with my business.
Your map is the type of propaganda France puts out to try and show how important its language is. The reality is the map is a joke as it indicates that the only places it is spoken outside of Quebec and France is a bunch of economically unimportant third world basket cases. I guess I would try to learn french if I wanted to be a aid worker.
-
Originally posted by ravells
It is probably correct to say that in terms of 'international political importance' French is probably second only to English - Many international treaties are legally accepted as 'original' in the English and French Language. In some cases (such as the Warsaw Convention which regulates the liabilities regarding International transport by air), the original treaty is drafted in French.
[/B]
In old Europe french held a disproportionate amount of influence as it was in the center of 2 world wars. After each it had a large say in the direction of european politics and made sure its language was prominantly represented. In the last 25 years the importance of France in world politics has dimininished greatly as the cold war ended and the economic boom in asia has occured. Your argument is not really valid any more. It is like saying Latin is still and important language as so much of the basis of our Law and Medical texts and language has been dervived from Latin.
Originally posted by ravells
However the influence of French as an international language of commerce is pretty negligible when compared to English.
Agreed 100%
Originally posted by ravells
As to how long a 'state' has been in existence, that argument can run and run...it all depends on your definition. Do you look at the type of government it has? A common language? Cultural norms and cohesion? There is no 'right' answer.
So I guess a baptisim in 496 is as good a date as any to base the birth of the country on?
Of course Greece Japan India China Egypt and Italy all predate France by hundreds and thousands of years according to this logic right?
A country likes to claim it is old as the impression is that if they have existed for 900 hundred years they must be doing something right but even in China the dynastys that predate the current nation have nothing in common politically with China as it exists today.
Originally posted by ravells
It is a little saddening that virtually every political discussion on these boards, regardless of the title ends up with a 'guns vs. no guns, French bashing, liberal vs. republican polemic.
From what I can see, many of the US posters on this board feel isolated in that their country gets blamed for all the world's current ills, and the French posters on the board feel isolated because they have to carry their UN veto around their necks like an albatross.
It's a pity that this board which brings so many different nationalities together is being used to vent invective rather than to foster some global understanding with an open mind.
Ravs.
True
-
Originally posted by Habu
Of course Greece Japan India China Egypt and Italy all predate France by hundreds and thousands of years according to this logic right?
[/B]
Both logics are fundamentally correct.
If you look at the Nation, as a form of govrnment, with a territory, laws, and internal social organization, the parameter to use is the birth of that particular nation, for example, in the case of Italy, will be 1861.
But you can look to the culture, too, the complex of beliefs, uses, basic rules, interactions that are under the "skin" that a nation is.
In this case the origin can be conduced way back in time, generally in the period of the "classics" (Greece, Rome, and so on), unless big modifications happened (sadly usually associated with forms of genocyde), in the structure of the population.
Add to this the fact that, in the cultures, there are always large transition zones, exactly opposed with the precise solution of continuity between nations.
This dualism between people's culture and the concept of nation is something that, i guess, is very difficult to grasp for the people born and educated in the USA, I believe because there, the phenomenon of formation has been largely different and new in history.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Then you are just wrong. Ask Boroda or any other Russian whether he feels Russia is a new country or merely an old country with a new government.
Thank you for proving my point about French being an official language in Canada and that many Canadians use French as their first language. The province of Quebec is not the only province where French is spoken. New Brunswick is also a bi-lingual province and many French speaking communities can be found in Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.
That's crap.
-
none of that matters... do the french women shave their armpits and... have french people discovered washing machines yet?
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Can you be more specific, or are you just popping in to spread your usual sunshine and happiness?
only 23% of Canadians speak French as a first OR SECOND language.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Thank you Martlet for confirming that French is an official language in Canada and that one quarter of the population speaks French.
Actually, I did nothing of the sort. English is the official language of Canada.
I said only 23% of Canadians speak French as a first OR SECOND language.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Then you are just wrong. Ask Boroda or any other Russian whether he feels Russia is a new country or merely an old country with a new government.
Thank you for proving my point about French being an official language in Canada and that many Canadians use French as their first language. The province of Quebec is not the only province where French is spoken. New Brunswick is also a bi-lingual province and many French speaking communities can be found in Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.
Quite right about the Francophone communities within English Canada.
The people are very friendly and the food is great the best of both worlds.:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Martlet, according to the Official Languages Act, Canada is a bilingual country. That means that there are two official languages in Canada - English and French.
According to NationMaster, it isn't. It's easy to see how they made the mistake, though, since English is by far the dominant language in Canada.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nice edit Martlet.
What about it? Are you going to cry about everything?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Dishonesty becomes you, strange as it may seem. It kind of fills out the blanks in your otherwise obnoxious character.
What dishonesty? Posting that the source I was using for information was incorrect? Actually, it wasn't incorrect, I just misread it. The datum was correct, though. Only 23% of Canadians can speak French as a first or second language. It's almost surpassed by the "other".
Whining becomes you, strange as it may seem. It kind of fills IN the blacks in your otherwise crybaby character.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! The desperate last verbal attacks of a loser.
People who completely debunk your arguments are losers? What a nice world you live in.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Heh, you have only confirmed my arguments, and the fact that you're so ignorant that I know more about your neighboring nation than you do.
The fact that you think being proven wrong is confirmation of your arguments is a laugh. I guess facts don't matter in the world of liberals.
Know more about Canada than I? Perhaps you need to read the thread again, then look up the definition of debunk.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is getting a bit silly.
Fact: You were wrong. French is an official language in Canada.
Fact: You agree with me that 23% of all Canadians speak French.
Thank you Martlet for your support in this discussion, even if you don't understand that you supported my arguments.
Apparently your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is getting silly, even by your standards Martlet.
What are my standards?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I may be there Rude maybe we can hook up and you can straighten me out on all this.
I'de look forward to it....not change your mind, as I know better than to travel that road....would be interesting to understand why you feel as you do though.
I'll buy ya a coke or whatever you canucks drink:)
-
Right befor the election. Could be a real interesting time.
-
I see rude still makin little boy threats....ya gotta stop that rude....its pretty childish in nature.
and Mart....yes there are 2 OFFICIAL languages.....and yes the most used is English...but you would be surprised how many TRY le language de Moliere....and the province of Quebec is still pretty influential in the parliment...:aok
Pongo...he gonna buy you a coke.....yuuuuuuuuk.....make em buy a REAL beer....not that horse piss they drink:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is getting a bit silly.
Fact: You were wrong. French is an official language in Canada.
Fact: You agree with me that 23% of all Canadians speak French.
Thank you Martlet for your support in this discussion, even if you don't understand that you supported my arguments.
Actually GScholz I am amazed by your ignorance of our culture in Canada.
The Liberal governments in Canada have systematically tried to make french a popular language here. There has been mandatory french lessons taught to all grade school students over the past 35 years. We have had corporations being forced to print all labels and instructions for their products in french even though over 80% of people here speak English over french. You cannot get a high level job in the government unless you can speak french which is probably why the civil service is filled with less competent people that the private sector is. And despite all this the percentage of people who speak french is in decline.
In Quebec there are draconian language laws that can result in you going to jail if you put an English sign outside your business. Imagine in the US a snivelling neighbor calling the government to report you for having English on your sign and then the government sending a highly paid civil servant to serve you with legal papers and sue you for doing so.
In any other country in the world such injustice would not be tolerated but in Canada we accept it in the hopes it will appease the french. But as you can see from the comments by people like SLO trying to appease idiots is a pointless task.
Despite the best efforts of the federal government here to promote french and all the hundreds of millions of dollars spent of this fruitless task, the language is in decline just as it is throughout the world.
Only in Quebec is it holding its own and only due to the draconian language laws. But even there any young Quebecor who wants to make his mark in business is learning English (on their own as it is not taught in schools) because they know that without English their chances in the world of business are much more limited.
-
Originally posted by SLO
I see rude still makin little boy threats....ya gotta stop that rude....its pretty childish in nature.
and Mart....yes there are 2 OFFICIAL languages.....and yes the most used is English...but you would be surprised how many TRY le language de Moliere....and the province of Quebec is still pretty influential in the parliment...:aok
Pongo...he gonna buy you a coke.....yuuuuuuuuk.....make em buy a REAL beer....not that horse piss they drink:rofl
Slo you are a perfect example of a Quebecer who has learned English during the time of the Parti Quebecois. You have just enough to show the world how illiterate you are, but not enough to make yourself understood.
-
I can't wait to hear what Slo has to say to that, Habu. Absolute slam dunk, BTW.
-
Originally posted by Habu
In Quebec there are draconian language laws that can result in you going to jail if you put an English sign outside your business. Imagine in the US a snivelling neighbor calling the government to report you for having English on your sign and then the government sending a highly paid civil servant to serve you with legal papers and sue you for doing so.
No kidding??? If any town or city in the US tried something like that it would be news everywhere with epithets like nazis and racists be slung freely. Maybe not unjustly so.
-
Now why would Habu make up the bit about it being illegal to put up an English sign? You seem to be suggesting he's either being dishonest or uninformed, either way it's an easy thing to check.
There can be no arguing how stupid laws would be that would prohibit English signs in a country where 80% of the population speaks English.
-
Kieran have your ever been to Belgium or Swiss ?
-
Originally posted by Habu
Actually GScholz I am amazed by your ignorance of our culture in Canada.
Blah....blah....blah.
:rolleyes:
GSholz simple stated that we're a bilingual country nothing more nothing less he did post the Act, so what's your point?
And you talk aboot SLO being a twit. :aok
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No kidding??? If any town or city in the US tried something like that it would be news everywhere with epithets like nazis and racists be slung freely. Maybe not unjustly so.
I have heard they also have laws about answering your buisness phone in French. They have people that call to check that you answer first in French and if you don't, you are fined.
It's almost as bad as France outlawing the word Email in offical government communications .
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have heard they also have laws about answering your buisness phone in French. They have people that call to check that you answer first in French and if you don't, you are fined.
It's almost as bad as France outlawing the word Email in offical government communications .
My guess is : it's like your French example an urban legend :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Kieran have your ever been to Belgium or Swiss ?
No, but... what does that have to do with Quebec outlawing English signs on shops?
-
Originally posted by straffo
My guess is : it's like your French example an urban legend :)
http://www.janda.org/b20/News%20articles/Language%20law
maybe, but look at these laws then tell me it is far fetched:
An anonymous informant tipped the Quebec government. Then a stranger appeared, taking photographs. Soon a letter came, fining Bob Rice. The 60-year-old plumber was then convicted at a trial he did not attend. His tractor and truck were confiscated and put up for auction.
Rice's offense: a sign that read "BOB'S PLUMBING SERVICE & FARM SUPPLIES."
It was nailed onto a metal shed 240 feet off the public road in the small town of Venosta, Quebec, Rice said. The Quebec government said Rice had violated a law requiring small commercial signs to include French, with the French letters at least twice the size of those of any other language. The law, in effect since 1993, is strictly enforced.
The original version of the sign law, better known as Bill 101, barred all languages other than French on outdoor commercial signs. The law was amended in 1993, after the United Nations Human Rights Committee intervened, calling it a human-rights violation. The new law requires that French be "markedly predominant."
here's a good one:
The agency's letter instructed the Chomedey, Que., couple to either take their Web site off the Internet or update the site so it gives equal visibility to the French language. Failure to comply would result in a fine, the agency said.
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/globejune899.html
Pretty funny to me..... they have to Force people to deal with French to "protect" the culture. If they didn't have these laws, French would continue it's decline more than likely. Pretty sad law.
-
Straffo, Nuke is right on all points and assumptions it's an anus law. :p
"Pretty funny to me..... they have to Force people to deal with French to "protect" the culture. If they didn't have these laws, French would continue it's decline more than likely. Pretty sad law."
Yep pretty sad indeed. :aok
-
Originally posted by Kieran
No, but... what does that have to do with Quebec outlawing English signs on shops?
so you have zero experience of any federal multilingual country ?
Nuke what is your problem with people no respecting their law ?
You can say what you want : it's their law
The only having trouble with this Habu but we all know how insecure he is.
@Torque : it's perhaps a anal law but how should they deal with a langage imperialisme ?
For exemple last time I've been to the supermarket some products were not only having an English name but were having also a description in english (the french one was under the bottom with a pretty small font)
Now imagine the reversed experience.
And this anal law is perhaps because of what the Cajun have experimented in the "land of the free".
-
What?! Canada condemned by the UN for human rights violations?! Haha, that is indeed funny.
Then again... getting your shop taken away because you put up a sign in another language does seem harsh...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What?! Canada condemned by the UN for human rights violations?! Haha, that is indeed funny.
Then again... getting your shop taken away because you put up a sign in another language does seem harsh...
If he choose to ignore such a basic regulation will he respect basic higiene rules ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
If he choose to ignore such a basic regulation will he respect basic higiene rules ?
Give me a break. You don't think being able to take someone's private property and auction it off simply because of the language of the sign is draconian? You aren't actually DEFENDING the law, are you?
-
here's a good one....
do any of you morons actually live here.......no
its BILINGUAL.....If you have a Business here, and you wish to put up a sign...please do so in FRENCH and ENGLISH.....so that both cultures can understand.....and know WTF you are dealing with.....well well.....its so damn complicated...what I'm I to do.
maybe thats too much for Mr.Habu to understand.....he knows but one language only...and actually doesn't live here.....next time dweeb...come on over and GAIN the exp. instead of reading it somewhere and passing judgement....you actually might sound a little more intelligent.
:aok
-
Does Montreal have a Chinatown like Victoria?
What language are the signs?
(http://www.thingsasian.com//content/1300/46/images/fantan05.jpg)
-
Originally posted by straffo
You can say what you want : it's their law
Kinda like theirs?
http://histclo.hispeed.com/country/ger/chron/c20iwnrp.html
-
My, my, Slo, you actually are... slow.
The business in a bilingual area will put up a sign in two languages if it is necessary to do so. If the business owner doesn't do so, and the business fails because of it, then the point is made. What you are defending is thought policing. Go right ahead, but don't even BOTHER to tell me how enlightened your country or culture is, because... with laws like this, it isn't.
So much for your intellectual superiority, rising above petty insults as you have. ;)
Do you live in America? No? Why do you always have opinions on American laws and customs? hehe, rich...
-
so what is being said here is that french is a dying language and it needs a lot of heavy handed socialism in order to hang in for another couple of decades or so?
this perhaps explains some of the socialists on this board.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Give me a break. You don't think being able to take someone's private property and auction it off simply because of the language of the sign is draconian? You aren't actually DEFENDING the law, are you?
May I rape your daughter ?
After all it's just another draconian law that forbid me to do so.
Do you undertand this "dura lex sed lex" ?
@Iron : you obviously understand as well as usually I won't waste my time explaining.
-
Originally posted by straffo
May I rape your daughter ?
After all it's just another draconian law that forbid me to do so.
Do you undertand this "dura lex sed lex" ?
@Iron : you obviously understand as well as usually I won't waste my time explaining.
I think I understand at least as well as you Straffo. I think you just can't or won't see past your own prejudice.
-
Originally posted by straffo
May I rape your daughter ?
After all it's just another draconian law that forbid me to do so.
Do you undertand this "dura lex sed lex" ?
@Iron : you obviously understand as well as usually I won't waste my time explaining.
Straffo, even for you it's a stretch to imply rape can be equated to language submersion.
-
you still don't undertand :
"dura lex sed lex"
Arguing on a flightsim nerd BBS won't change a iota of that.
-
Originally posted by straffo
you still don't undertand :
"dura lex sed lex"
Arguing on a flightsim nerd BBS won't change a iota of that.
It's [judge dread]"the law"[/judge dread] when it suits YOU. It's nazism when it doesn't.
-
Heck Straffo, if you'd only said in the beginning you were an idiot it could have saved us all a lot of time.
Are you now suggesting rape is ok in Quebec or France? Are you saying it is comparable to Quebec's language laws?
No, I don't know what your phrase means. I could google it, but quite honestly if you won't go through the effort of communicating it in English, I won't bother looking it up. See? I have language standards, too! Wheee, this is fun!
By all means, continue to defend the stupid law with more stupid analogies.
-
If you want to follow my post now : learn french
otherwise you won't know if I agree/disagree or I'm insulting you.
C'est pourtant simple a comprendre, si on subit l'impérialisme liguinstique d'une autre langue on perd son identitée chose dont vous n'avez rien à foutre vue que c'est VOTRE culture/identitée que vous imposez volontairement ou non aux autres
Ceci dit quand une loi existe dans un pays démocratique c'est pour être appliquée non ?
Pourquoi un individu devrais de son propre-chef déclarer qu'il est l'exception qui confirme là règle.
less than 1% of the native english poster of the thread will understand this post regardless of the translation quality.
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you want to follow my post now : learn french
otherwise you won't know if I agree/disagree or I'm insulting you.
I don't have to learn french to know that there is at least a 50/50 chance of it being the latter.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't have to learn french to know that there is at least a 50/50 chance of it being the latter.
I'd most likely put it 95/5.
-
Hehe, like I care, Straffo. Knock yourself out. ;)
-
Ce qui illustre bien mon propos.
Je fais bien l'effort (parfois maladroit) de m'exprimer dans votre langue et en retour : rien
Mais je n'en attendais pas plus.
How come you can split 3 cases in 95/5% or 50/50% ?
it look so un-mathematic ...
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you want to follow my post now : learn french
otherwise you won't know if I agree/disagree or I'm insulting you.
C'est pourtant simple a comprendre, si on subit l'impérialisme liguinstique d'une autre langue on perd son identitée chose dont vous n'avez rien à foutre vue que c'est VOTRE culture/identitée que vous imposez volontairement ou non aux autres
Ceci dit quand une loi existe dans un pays démocratique c'est pour être appliquée non ?
Pourquoi un individu devrais de son propre-chef déclarer qu'il est l'exception qui confirme là règle.
less than 1% of the native english poster of the thread will understand this post regardless of the translation quality.
Is French any harder to learn than pig latin? I think pig latin sounds sophistcated: Ancay ouyay eakspay igpay atinlay ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ce qui illustre bien mon propos.
Je fais bien l'effort (parfois maladroit) de m'exprimer dans votre langue et en retour : rien
Mais je n'en attendais pas plus.
How come you can split 3 cases in 95/5% or 50/50% ?
it look so un-mathematic ...
There are many more possibilites. I was only saying that you are as likely to insult as not. I can explain it further for you if needed?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ceci dit quand une loi existe dans un pays démocratique c'est pour être appliquée non ?
Following a law just becuse it exists may not be healthy for an individual or a society.
Many laws are merely forgotton. Many laws exist which are no longer enforced. With outcry unjust laws can be changed.
In my hometown, it is illegal to kick the head off of a rattlesnake.
This law has not been enforced in decades.
The true democratic way is to let the people speak what they speak. (This coming from a country with no official language)
-
Entweder du sprichts Americanische (oder Deutsch), oder lass mich in ruhe. ;)
-
Je ne suis pas d'accord, une lois qui a été appliquée pour la derniere fois en 2001 peut pas être qualifiée de désuète à mon avis.
(btw I can translate if you want ... but tomorrow)
-
Nein, es macht nichts.
-
Ich kann deutch sprachen aber meine deutch ist schlecht :)
und ich mochte zu bet gehen ..
(I hop it make sense :D)
-
Bett. ;)
Gscholz:
Fragen Sie Englisher!
-
Ask an Englishmen. They don't think we speak English. ;)
Ah, anyway, our French posters think they are the only ones that are bi-lingual. Many of us Americans are, we just don't have a pressing need to flaunt it. ;)
-
I can speak Croatian and English fluently, though my English is much better now than my Croatian. I stuidied French and German extensively but I have forgotten much of them through non use. Of course I could get them back fairily quickly if need be. It is my intention to learn Japanese at some point as well.
So this evil insular american xenophopbe has 4 languages available to him...
-
Originally posted by straffo
Je ne suis pas d'accord, une lois qui a été appliquée pour la derniere fois en 2001 peut pas être qualifiée de désuète à mon avis.
(btw I can translate if you want ... but tomorrow)
So I have to go to jail if I kick the head off a rattlesnake?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
English, nicht Americanisch. Americanisch existiert doch nicht. ;)
Ever heard of the Cherokee language?
-
Cherokee is an american language, not The American language, but an american language.
-Bill Murray, paraphrased from 'Groundhog Day'
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So I have to go to jail if I kick the head off a rattlesnake?
Depend when last time this law was applied.
(btw it won't be really smart to try to kick the head of a snake :D)
-
I will put in my support of Habu's statements.
I will also add that there is a lot of Hatred towards those draconian Quebec Language laws.
I was born and raised in Aylmer Quebec Slo, I think I could be considered qualified to comment on the Language issue there, do you think?
Any law that violates human rights is wrong, Why try to defend it Straffo? Quebec is trying by whatever means necessary to abolish English out of the Province, Yet, at the same time Demands the rest of the Country follow Bilingualism.
Now even against popular opinion There is a definite push to make the city of Ottawa officially bil.
-
Je défend cette lois de la même façon que je défendrais une lois équivalente dans l'autre sens.
Le fait que vous ne vouliez pas d'une minorité et que celle-ci puisse exister n'est pas non plus en accord avec les droits de l'homme.
C'est tous simplement le droit à la resistance a l'oppression que vous voulez annihiller(*).
1 - La résistance est un moyen ultime. Elle implique que la démocratie doive jouer.Ainsi le Préambule de la Déclaration Universelle de l'ONU proclame " qu'il est essentiel que les droits de l'homme soient protégés par un régime de droit pour que l'Homme ne soit pas contraint suprême recours, à la révolte contre la tyrannie et l'oppression"
L'article 28 précise que chaque homme a droit à un ordre tel que les droits et libertés puissent être rendus effectifs.
D'ailleur si la premiére version était contraire à la charte la deuxiéme ne l'est pas non ?
(*) que ce soit conscient ou non.
Ceci dit c'est une richesse que d'avoir des ou une minorité , le renier serait perdre une partie de votre identité.
-
And its always been considered impolite to start spewing in another language other than the one that is being used in conversation.
-
Why are you posting in french all the time Straffo? If you want to write something that no one will understand, why write something at all?
I dunno, is that just some new way to backtrack out of the argument just say so. I mean last stuff you said in english in this thread you were defending the Quebec law, then you were getting critizised for that position, and your respons is to post in french? That is both rude and kinda childish.
-
Steve I'll give a private answer on C6.
@Ping : You're supposed to be bilingual no ?
How come you can't do the minimal effort to translate my post ?
I undertand I use the language of a minority you can't stand but I'm just giving you a feeling of your onw medecine.
-
I "did" translate your post. But there is a reason I moved out of that province a long time ago.
And it is still impolite to reply in anything other than the language used in the original conversation.
-
Originally posted by Ping
And its always been considered impolite to start spewing in another language other than the one that is being used in conversation.
But staffo is french, he is supposed to be rude (and smelly)..
Yea straffo cut out the french, I'm trying to forget it here. :)
-
Originally posted by Ping
I "did" translate your post. But there is a reason I moved out of that province a long time ago.
And it is still impolite to reply in anything other than the language used in the original conversation.
Certainly but my prose is a lot less subtil in English (and I'm smelly rude yadayada like the usual cliché ..;))
Reading your first sentence it look like the Quebecois have an attitude problem with the Englo-Canadian , but I've no ideas of this : I'm not Québécois.
I don't think like a Québécois, I've no knowledge of your internal troubles, I'm just defending the right of existence of a minority.
eeekkkk this post looked truly better when wrote(isn't "written" more grammaticaly correct in this case ?) in French :(
I switched to French also because I'm a lazy bastard and translating is boring ,especially when knowing that half of or more of the savour of my post will be lost.
I'm weird in English but not as weird as in French :p
-
I switched to French also because I'm a lazy bastard and translating is boring ,especially when knowing that half of or more of the savour of my post will be lost.
As opposed to perhaps 90-95% of your posts being "lost"?
Good choice.
-
moi je te comprends tres bien cousin..... :aok
as for English/French having problems.....its the usual.....most being afraid or to lazy to learn the others language.....so they prefer lashing out hate.....
and yes we have a thriving chinese community.....doesn't all cities have this:D
and the law is a little harsh....Montreal has become a very international city.....and English is very much used.....yet on the outskirts its mostly French....any of you smart one's able to Balance that for us please....all idea's are welcome.
PING.....donne moi ta raison S.V.P.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
As opposed to perhaps 90-95% of your posts being "lost"?
Good choice.
it's up to you to try an online translator (even if I've done my best to make such tool puke when trying to translate my posts :D)
-
Slo-
I know another language, I don't care to know yours. And when it gets right down to it, you spew your fair share of "hate".
Straffo-
It is NOT up to me to use a translator. It's up to you to place your opinions into the medium it will be understood. Your thoughts are not profound enough for anyone to bother to translate, I'm afraid to say...
-
Et paf on est revenu aux idées préconçues ...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Slo-
I know another language, I don't care to know yours. And when it gets right down to it, you spew your fair share of "hate".
Straffo-
It is NOT up to me to use a translator. It's up to you to place your opinions into the medium it will be understood. Your thoughts are not profound enough for anyone to bother to translate, I'm afraid to say...
glad to hear you like sharing your ideas.....If I spew out HATE...its because HATE was spewed out at me:aok...I'm like a big fat cushion....it just bounces off and goes back right in your face. :rofl
-
Oh my:
"I'm rubber, you're glue..."
-
Originally posted by SLO
and the law is a little harsh....Montreal has become a very international city.....and English is very much used.....yet on the outskirts its mostly French....any of you smart one's able to Balance that for us please....all idea's are welcome.
PING.....donne moi ta raison S.V.P.
I'm not claiming to be smart but you might try a little FREEDOM and let people speak what they will like we do here in the US?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not claiming to be smart but you might try a little FREEDOM and let people speak what they will like we do here in the US?
sorry I don't make the laws here :D
and we probably have more freedom then you do in the US of A:aok
just consider us your 53rd very big state:rofl
-
Originally posted by SLO
sorry I don't make the laws here :D
and we probably have more freedom then you do in the US of A:aok
just consider us your 53rd very big state:rofl
You and some others keep saying that. Yet when some of your racist and draconian practices are exposed it's "I don't make the laws here"? If you don't then who does? Surely you can do better than that?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
racist and draconian practices are exposed
you shouldn't be so serious Iron....your choice of words might be a little off base.....you REALLY shouldn't talk about racism....or even dare preach about it.
have a nice day Iron...see in de MA :aok
-
Originally posted by SLO
you shouldn't be so serious Iron....your choice of words might be a little off base.....you REALLY shouldn't talk about racism....or even dare preach about it.
have a nice day Iron...see in de MA :aok
Allow me to jump in here. I will try to respond in SLO SPEAK
He is serious.....so what?...what are you going to do about it....his worlds are right on the money..........talking about racism is a good thing, you only hate it because you are defending laws that are racist......You would have made a good policeman in Germany in 1941 after all you did not write the laws you are just following them.....:aok :lol :rofl (insert totally inappropriate similes here).......he can do whatever he wants because unlike you he is not an idiot.................:lol :mad: :p :( :) :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
so you have zero experience of any federal multilingual country ?
Nuke what is your problem with people no respecting their law ?
You can say what you want : it's their law
The only having trouble with this Habu but we all know how insecure he is.
@Torque : it's perhaps a anal law but how should they deal with a langage imperialisme ?
Why don't you enlighten us all on how insecure I am Straffo? Would you like me to enlighten everyone on what I think of you (using many quotes and examples from your posts of course)?
The only think here that is wrong is that you think that law is worth defending because it attacks non french speakers. Interesting how fascist laws are ok in your world as long as they are written and administered by french people.
History will judge Bill 101 and the people behind it much less tolerantly than our present population. We prefer to live in denial for some reason. However it is good to see that no matter how fascist the law is, there are people who will support it because it is attacking others and not themselves. It reminds us all of how the death camps in WW2 came to be.
-
I believe that the point straffo is trying so earnestly to make is that..... his puppy rides a green bicycle while wearing an enormous garden.
I guess it's more about the way he says it tho. Hard to believe that such a romantic language would die out!
lazs
-
(http://www.foxsportsworld.com/netapp/blobs/active/9/8/1855252_7_2.jpg)
Love these English babes!
-
The more a law piss you Habu the more I agree with.
The more you're pissed the more I'm happy.
And speaking of death camp ... pfff ever heard of the Accadian ?
Nice pic Jack :)
-
The truth hurts doesn't it straffo? Nice to see you speaking English again.
:D
-
Originally posted by SLO
you shouldn't be so serious Iron....your choice of words might be a little off base.....you REALLY shouldn't talk about racism....or even dare preach about it.
have a nice day Iron...see in de MA :aok
Why not? I'm not a racist and my government forbids racist practices unlike some where they are sanctioned by the government.
Show me another country that has such tolerance for other cultures and lax immigration laws as the US.
I'll lighten up when you do. Have a nice day yerself. :)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
he decided to invade Iraq to enrich himself, and these companies. Why?
You know what I think. Because Bush believes what he is doing is the right thing for America. Whether or not he is correct, we shall see, but I believe he is doing what he thinks is right for our country, not himself.
He did it to get his brother laid by Asia Hookers that come to his hotel room....
Or may be he did it so he can get laid by his wife.... must be a new kind of fetish.
how about this... because Bush has a history of running companies into bankruptcy with his incompetence...
Bush is incompetent and incontenant.
-
Dam Jack those chicks are HOT.
They should lose the Bras tho *)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Snip
I don't think like a Québécois, I've no knowledge of your internal troubles, I'm just defending the right of existence of a minority.
Snip
The Minority in Quebec is the Anglos. Their Rights are being threatened. Defend them please.
-
Originally posted by Ping
The Minority in Quebec is the Anglos. Their Rights are being threatened. Defend them please.
You mean there is some laws forbiding them to speak/write/learn english ?
@mars01 : not only they should lose their bra , but they should have been refreshed with some water ;)
-
Originally posted by Ping
The Minority in Quebec is the Anglos. Their Rights are being threatened. Defend them please.
How the f**k are they threatened by us?
They have the same rights as any person living in Quebec does.
And we are a minority in Canada.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You mean there is some laws forbiding them to speak/write/learn english ?
Actually yes there are. So I guess you agree with us now that you know that right Straffo? Or else you would not have posted it.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
How the f**k are they threatened by us?
They have the same rights as any person living in Quebec does.
And we are a minority in Canada.
Yes the right not to name there business an English name. Not to use an English sign on their business. The right not to answer the phone in English if you are a big company. The right not to send your kids to an English school if you are a French speaking family.
Of course if you wanted to open a business in Toronto and put a big french sign out front and make it mandatory to speak french and send your kids to an all french school you would be able to no problem. The only place in Canada with laws that prohibit signs and prohibit the free use of other languages are in Quebec.
Can you see how they are threatened now? (Somehow I doubt it).
-
This is an absolutly non interesting post that will be, in part, in that evil french language (warning : reading it could kill you).
Straffo : Allumer le feu pas qu'un peu... Y'a un vrai sentiment anti-français chez nos amis américains de ce bbs (ne pas généraliser), a la limite (souvent dépassée) du racisme (sic).
Je sais pas comment tu fais pour :
1. passer autant de temps a répondre sachant que cela ne changera pas d'un iota leurs avis.
2. supporter cet hostilitée ambiante sur le bbs et dans le jeu.
3. écouter Johnny.
Bon courage mais c'est, a mon avis, du temps perdu.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Actually yes there are. So I guess you agree with us now that you know that right Straffo? Or else you would not have posted it.
Sure I agree,I was figuring it was not the case otherwise I won't have been so vocal.
It's weird to be a minority and oppress another minority whatever the reason.
As you say in English : pot calling kettle ...
Originally posted by Ouaibe
This is an absolutly non interesting post that will be, in part, in that evil french language (warning : reading it could kill you).
Straffo : Allumer le feu pas qu'un peu... Y'a un vrai sentiment anti-français chez nos amis américains de ce bbs (ne pas généraliser), a la limite (souvent dépassée) du racisme (sic).
Je sais pas comment tu fais pour :
1. passer autant de temps a répondre sachant que cela ne changera pas d'un iota leurs avis.
2. supporter cet hostilitée ambiante sur le bbs et dans le jeu.
3. écouter Johnny.
Bon courage mais c'est, a mon avis, du temps perdu.
Ca m'amuse et en plus j'ai du temps a perdre entre les compilations de divers projets et des tonnes de docs à lire :)
Pour le point 3 c'est plutot "les sheriffs" et les Wapas en ce moment ;)
ou n'importe quel groupe de punk/alternatif
-
The reason for these laws is not because we hate the English.
Fear of loosing our cultural identity is the reason.
Quebec is surrounded by English.
English people speak English, so they can send their kids to English school.
US schools teach in the US' native language and so do ours.
I dont see any problems here, sorry.
I would prefer signs in both languages in equal size so that both English and French people can read equally well.
But I dont make the laws.
English only signs would be a very bad idea anyway, since most of the population speaks French.
I come from Baie-Comeau, Mulroney's home town.
We have an English High School in a town of less then 25000 people.
I dont consider that a threat to their language, sorry.
-
US doesn't teach only in English and nowhere in the US is any language forbidden. Many cultures are embraced in the US.
There is a difference.
Originally posted by AVRO1
The reason for these laws is not because we hate the English.
Fear of loosing our cultural identity is the reason.
Quebec is surrounded by English.
English people speak English, so they can send their kids to English school.
US schools teach in the US' native language and so do ours.
I dont see any problems here, sorry.
I would prefer signs in both languages in equal size so that both English and French people can read equally well.
But I dont make the laws.
English only signs would be a very bad idea anyway, since most of the population speaks French.
I come from Baie-Comeau, Mulroney's home town.
We have an English High School in a town of less then 25000 people.
I dont consider that a threat to their language, sorry.
-
The way I have read this thread is English is not forbidden in Canada either... Bill 101 stated simply that signs were to be in English AND French... in other words... English names are OK... French names are OK........... Want to have your sign in English, its OK... Just have it in French too...
This does not sound like language rasicm to me.. Sounds like sign controll... Not drastically unlike sign restrictions in some areas of america such as height, content, and locations........
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by straffo
@mars01 : not only they should lose their bra , but they should have been refreshed with some water ;)
They wouldn't be the only ones refreshed.
-
From what's been posted here it was a criminal offense to put up a sign in any language other than French until '93 when the UN declared the practice a violation of human rights.
Gimme a break, are you saying that the sign restrictions you mentioned are for any reason other than safety (on roads) or asthetics? Are you suggesting that Canada or any other country does not restrict advertising to some degree? Are you suggesting that this is somehow the same as limiting the signs to one language? I've seen spin before but you are making me dizzy just watching you.
Originally posted by kappa
The way I have read this thread is English is not forbidden in Canada either... Bill 101 stated simply that signs were to be in English AND French... in other words... English names are OK... French names are OK........... Want to have your sign in English, its OK... Just have it in French too...
This does not sound like language rasicm to me.. Sounds like sign controll... Not drastically unlike sign restrictions in some areas of america such as height, content, and locations........
k
AoM
-
It Gets Better.
Try as a construction worker to cross the border to work in Quebec.
Quebec Protectionists have made it next to impossible for Ontario workers to work in the Province of Quebec, While at the same time Quebec workers are freely allowed to cross into Ontario to Work in Ontario. Much Hot air has been spewn by the Quebec Politicians about correcting that..but it is just that...Hot Air.
As a Canadian I can work freely in any Province or Territory...yet not in Quebec in my Trade.
Quebec even has their own Licencing for various Trades, Of which an International Licence is not acceptable.
Oh...By the way Before I get Labled Rascist, This isnt Racism on my part..My Father in Law and Wife are French. Stick that in your Poutine and Eat It.
Reason for Edit: In Quebec all Roadway signs are In French only. Yet here in Ottawa all must be fully Bil.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
US doesn't teach only in English and nowhere in the US is any language forbidden. Many cultures are embraced in the US.
There is a difference.
ever heard of the accadians ?
:aok
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Gimme a break, are you saying that the sign restrictions you mentioned are for any reason other than safety (on roads) or asthetics? Are you suggesting that Canada or any other country does not restrict advertising to some degree? Are you suggesting that this is somehow the same as limiting the signs to one language? I've seen spin before but you are making me dizzy just watching you.
lol a antagonist it seems...
ummmm, a break? why?
1. no
2. no
3. same as limiting signs to one language? where did i even remotely say anything like that... ???
4. lol spin? Grab your pills Iron and see if that calms your world down... was no spin there...
Simply stating how I had read the thread... Nowhere in this thread could I remember it written that a sign could not have english written on it.. Just that it had to have english and french... I did not read it the way some here did. I could be wrong as it is a rather large thread and might have missed something...
k
AoM
-
I never said that signs should not be in English also.
I dont care anyway since I can understand both.
Yeah, construction worker thing is really stupid.
Never really understood that one.
If they are qualified then they should be allowed to work.
In Quebec all Roadway signs are In French only. Yet here in Ottawa all must be fully Bil.
Yeah that is probably because of the fear of assimilation.
Maybe the government believed it go something like this:
We are the Anglophones
You will be assimilated
Resistance is futile :D
I would like to see Bil Road Signs but that would probably cost alot of $, which we unfortunatly do not have. :(
-
Originally posted by SLO
I see rude still makin little boy threats....ya gotta stop that rude....its pretty childish in nature.
and Mart....yes there are 2 OFFICIAL languages.....and yes the most used is English...but you would be surprised how many TRY le language de Moliere....and the province of Quebec is still pretty influential in the parliment...:aok
Pongo...he gonna buy you a coke.....yuuuuuuuuk.....make em buy a REAL beer....not that horse piss they drink:rofl
What are you talkin about now?
-
Originally posted by kappa
The way I have read this thread is English is not forbidden in Canada either... Bill 101 stated simply that signs were to be in English AND French... in other words... English names are OK... French names are OK........... Want to have your sign in English, its OK... Just have it in French too...
This does not sound like language rasicm to me.. Sounds like sign controll... Not drastically unlike sign restrictions in some areas of america such as height, content, and locations........
k
AoM
Signs...Signs....everywhere are signs....blockin out the scenary....breakin my mind...do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs
-
Avro...we don't really have the dollars either..yet we are forced or Required to do it.
I have nothing against you or even Slo although he is definitely a little OFF at times.
There are Two standards here in Canada, and worse yet, Quebec has the asinine ability to bring up the Notwithstanding Clause any time it decides its Dis stinked Society is being infringed upon by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Yes it TICKS me off, and then to see people defend these abuses is even worse.
Habu: My wife found your comment on Bilingual Government Employees and their standards below that of the Civil sector Hillarious :) ............. Spot On.
-
Bill 101 is an anus law and just like the racial laws of the southern states it was spawned from one culture's fear of another, it is indefensible. One would think a culture after time would mature and realize the error.
The Francophones are passionate about protecting their culture yet incidences like Oka and The Great Whale project show their aparent indifference to the indigenous Cree and Mohawk and their cultures.
The Cree also request to be recognized as a distinct society within Quebec and were denied that same status do you see the problems and slippery slopes that bill 101 creates now?
Ping, did a job for the RCMP everyone needed abstracts for security reasons, turns out the three workers we got from the local union were once FLQ members.:rofl
-
hahahahaha. Gotta laugh at that one Torque :)
-
I got this on a canadian site :
(http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/auvolant/_images/content/anti-idling/pi_stop.gif)
Is it a French or English road sign ?
Seriously the more I read on this the more I think there is morons on both side of the fence ...
Like http://www.alliancequebec.ca/ were the pages are either in English or either in English (no it's not a typo) even if there is a "language choice" link ...
When I read that in quebec
62% of the resident Francophone speak English.
38% of the resident Anglophone speak French.
When I read that judicial system of Quebec is inspired of Code Napoléon
When I read what happened in the past to the Accadien
When I read Quebec moto : JE ME SOUVIENS
I think wtf did the Canadian didn't autorized the secession of Quebec ?
If you're not smart enought to behave like in swiss were French ,German and Italien can be used in the same conversation you are going to a major clash sooner or later.
The only solution I see is : bilinguism in the whole country (not only Quebec) or independance of Quebec
-
In Ontario it is Stop/Arrete
In Quebec it is Arrete
There are two standards. Shall I take some digital pictures for you?
Looking up pictures on the Internet doesnt make you an expert.
-
Trust me Straffo: there is a growing feeling amongst Canadians that they would love to see Quebec Leave.
They utilize more federal dollars than they contribute. A drain on the system if you would like.
Their policies of Racial discrimination have hurt their provincial economy and is self destructive.
-
Alllright Dangit. Ameeerikans can join in here and spew their thoughts on this Canadian love fest anytime. I have no problem with that, just as i will comment on your ASININE Politics :D
-
The Francophones are passionate about protecting their culture yet incidences like Oka and The Great Whale project show their aparent indifference to the indigenous Cree and Mohawk and their cultures.
What the hell do you guys think happenned in 1990?
The natives took arms and troubled the peace for nothing.
A cop was killed and most of these guys did not even do jail time.
Yeah!!! We really mistreated the natives. :rolleyes:
Damn I would of sent those clowns to jail for troubling the peace and vandalism.
The reason for that is simple:
THEY DID EXACTLY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you break the law then you should play no matter what race you are.
If they had asked in a civilized way I am sure the government would of negociated with them to find a solution.
They choose to be savages and got what they deserved.
I'll make sure to write to the government to tell them that next time the Natives do that they should give them everything they ask for. :rolleyes:
If getting 50 millions from the government for the Great Whale project is mistreating the Crees, then we are guilty. :rolleyes:
Some posts makes me wonder how the English media in Canada are portraying us.
Seems like they are showing us for the monsters that we are. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ping
In Ontario it is Stop/Arrete
In Quebec it is Arrete
There are two standards. Shall I take some digital pictures for you?
Looking up pictures on the Internet doesnt make you an expert.
Well I was joking :)
Can you guess what symbol we use in France ?
Originally posted by Ping
Trust me Straffo: there is a growing feeling amongst Canadians that they would love to see Quebec Leave.
They utilize more federal dollars than they contribute. A drain on the system if you would like.
Their policies of Racial discrimination have hurt their provincial economy and is self destructive.
I guess you won't be able to be like the swiss till there is so more cliché used by both side :
Quebec : we are poor defenseless french speaker
Rest canada: those frog drain our ressources
Btw I thought Canada was bilingual ,it look to be French in Quebec and English everywere else.
What is the point to have a country split by language and so culture ?
You would better seperate each other.
-
@ Straffo
YEP.
See how those charts that dispayed French are either misleading or outright wrong?
-
sorry but I don't understand you last post :(
-
Yes it is for the most part French in Quebec and English everywhere else.
Yes I believe that it would better to let Quebec go.
This officially Bil. garbage is nothing but a terrible expense on the Tax payers, especially when Quebec is making their own rules to follow and the rest of Canada is required to follow an agenda set by French politicians, all made to appease the Quebec Government.
The opinions expressed here by me do not necessarily reflect those of the other Anglo Canadians on this board.
-
Right,it's time for another "grand dérangement" :rolleyes:
Yet another question : the only bilingual part is in Québec ?
I mean if I do an advertisement should I do in both languages only for Québec or must I do the same for an ad. in Ottawa for exemple ?
-
yup...we are SOOOOOOO bad:rolleyes:
thats why most Canadians come to Quebec to party....and have FUN
and we drain most of the resources...whatta good joke PING.:aok
-
A guy from quebec explained it to me in very simple terms... he said... "My house is wearing a red ballon and the taxi is eating my underwear."
this may not be the exact quote but it is close.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
What the hell do you guys think happenned in 1990?
The natives took arms and troubled the peace for nothing.
A cop was killed and most of these guys did not even do jail time.
Yeah!!! We really mistreated the natives. :rolleyes:
Damn I would of sent those clowns to jail for troubling the peace and vandalism.
The reason for that is simple:
THEY DID EXACTLY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you break the law then you should play no matter what race you are.
If they had asked in a civilized way I am sure the government would of negociated with them to find a solution.
They choose to be savages and got what they deserved.
I'll make sure to write to the government to tell them that next time the Natives do that they should give them everything they ask for. :rolleyes:
If getting 50 millions from the government for the Great Whale project is mistreating the Crees, then we are guilty. :rolleyes:
Some posts makes me wonder how the English media in Canada are portraying us.
Seems like they are showing us for the monsters that we are. :rolleyes:
Beats me why the Mohawk got all upset Avro all the fench mayor wanted was build a golf course and condos on the Mohawk's sacred burial grounds. As for the dead SQ officer their own stupidy of rushing one of the barricades and thus being routed cause that and noone knows where the shot came from. There is plenty of footage showing the Oka towns people bombarding cars carrying Mohawk women and children with fist sized rocks, yet not one charge was laid.
Ask the govn't in a civilized manor you mean exaclty what the Cree did for the Whale Project, yeah the Quebec govn't only listened after they were forced by the highest court to do impact studies, otherwise they could of cared less about flooding the Cree land.
Actually Quebec is lucky the Cree don't take their land calims to the world court which they have threaten to do and have the borders reduced back to what they were during confederation. How would you like a quebec but only a third of the size?
You mean all it cost was 50 million to purge the Cree of their land and culture held by them for thousands of years, then how much would it cost to make quebec purge 75 million?
Straffo, Canada is bilingual that means one can go anywhere in this country to a federal office and recieve both French and English service, i don't think the English could bend over backwards any further.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Trust me Straffo: there is a growing feeling amongst Canadians that they would love to see Quebec Leave.
That's the first I've heard of it. Do you have polls to back up this claim?
They utilize more federal dollars than they contribute. A drain on the system if you would like.
So does every other provice besides Ontario and Alberta.
-
Well, we'd all welcome Alberta and Saskatchewan. Great hunting opportunities, people and values similar to our Midwest.
You guys separate and apply for Statehood, I'm moving up!
;)
-
You know I would support Quebeck leaving Canada as long as they changed the borders in the north of Quebec to give the native people their own province. Once you get 100 miles north of the St Lawrence it is not Quebec anymore.
-
Originally posted by Habu
You know I would support Quebeck leaving Canada as long as they changed the borders in the north of Quebec to give the native people their own province. Once you get 100 miles north of the St Lawrence it is not Quebec anymore.
lmao:rofl
-
De quoi il parle ?
D'ailleur en faisant mes recherches j'ai découvert que le Labrador n'était pas au Québec ???
Vous fumez quoi au Canada ???
-
Straffo: French Bread
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, we'd all welcome Alberta and Saskatchewan. Great hunting opportunities, people and values similar to our Midwest.
You guys separate and apply for Statehood, I'm moving up!
;)
Maybe we could offer 'em a trade, California?
-
Cut n Paste
Since 1991, Quebec has been the only province to have an exclusive deal with the federal government that allows it to choose about half of its immigrants. Ottawa still handles refugees and has some control over family sponsorships.
Almost half of this year's expected 42,000 immigrants to Quebec already speak French.
But it's migration of another kind that could wreak havoc on the Quebec government's carefully laid plans.
The census figures show that the net loss of Quebecers to other provinces between 1996 and 2001 was 57,300 -- the highest level recorded since the mid-1980s.
There were 53,300 anglophones who left, compared to 39,700 francophones. Two-thirds of the people who moved out of Quebec headed to Ontario.
Those numbers don't change the reality that political measures such as immigration policy and language laws remain necessary until Quebec becomes an independent country, insists Guy Bouthillier, president of the nationalist group, Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal.
"Quebec's linguistic policies were all based on the idea that Quebec would not be simply a province in Canada,'' Bouthillier said.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=f1bccb42-b6c8-40d8-af57-3cdaefbb47f0