Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on August 26, 2006, 09:10:05 PM
-
This was just too funny not to post:
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20060826/i/r3490295772.jpg)
The Real Caption
A French United Nations vehicle drives past a poster of Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Tyre, in southern Lebanon, August 26, 2006. French troops have begun arriving in Lebanon to join an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force tasked with maintaining a truce between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas in south Lebanon. REUTERS/Ammar Awad (LEBANON)
Anyone else notice the white flag on the vehicle?;)
-
:rofl :aok
-
I'll have to wait a couple days to post my caption
-
Ruthlessness meets Uselessness
-
hey! it's the 27th, one more day and I can caption this...
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Ruthlessness meets Uselessness
Winner
-
"And once again, the UN throws in the towel, before they finnish getting off the plane"
-
"Ahhh... My precious!"
-
Anyone else notice the white flag on the vehicle?;)
The flag is in fact Blue, a blue UN flag. it's simply a trick of the light. But you knew that didn't you?
If the French were such cowards, how come they are first to commit troops to Lebanon?
All this French bashing combined with UN bashing. How original ...........:rolleyes:
-
Just ignore it cpxxx.. its humor on a kindergarden level ;)
-
French bashing?
Au contraire...
Actually they are quite clever putting themselves in this position.
I wonder how many francs they're going to charge Syria to haul supplies to forward Hezbollah positions in those shiny new APC's?
They're going to make a bundle!
-
Is that the fire of lunacy I see in Nasrallah's eyes?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The flag is in fact Blue, a blue UN flag. it's simply a trick of the light. But you knew that didn't you?
All this French bashing combined with UN bashing. How original ...........:rolleyes:
Actually, even if it is white, it is not out of place in any way.
A white flag doesnt signify surrender, it signifies a lack of hostile intent and a desire to negotiate or treat with the enemy/combatants, that doesnt allways involve surrender, though it undoubtably at times will.
Under accepted international rules of war, a person, group or vehicle(s) displaying a white flag may not fire their weapons, or be fired upon, to do so is a warcrime.
I would venture a guess that more than once or twice throughout the USA's history, her servicemen of one branch or another, have walked on a battlefield, under a white flag, with absolutely no intent of surrender, perhaps to gather wounded or something similar.
Not like a person in Gunslinger's line of work wouldnt know that though.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
If the French were such cowards, how come they are first to commit troops to Lebanon?
All this French bashing combined with UN bashing. How original ...........:rolleyes:
Initially, they commited to a whole div....err...200. (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Sarge/Whatever_anim.gif)
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Initially, they commited to a whole div....err...200. (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Sarge/Whatever_anim.gif)
and now its 2000
how many has America commited?
-
If america comits any more troops anywhere, Bush will fear for his life. The American public will not stand for it. Thats not to say I dont stand for it, I dont really know.
-
Just a thought, but I dont think Americans would been seen in such high esteem as their UN friends considering tehe U.S. did fund their enemy and give them the weapons to kill their families and friends.
I sorta guess that means they see French and other European nations as friendlier.
-
The only reason America isn't sending troops to Lebanon is to avoid increasing hostility of Hezbollah towards the UN. Those guys don't like Americans much as demonstrated when they murdered 241 Americans in 1983.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The only reason America isn't sending troops to Lebanon is to avoid increasing hostility of Hezbollah towards the UN. Those guys don't like Americans much as demonstrated when they murdered 241 Americans in 1983.
Yup, BTDT
The flag thing was too funny in an ironic sort of way not to post it. Get your panties in a bunch for all I care, it's still funny.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The only reason America isn't sending troops to Lebanon is to avoid increasing hostility of Hezbollah towards the UN. Those guys don't like Americans much as demonstrated when they murdered 241 Americans in 1983.
Yes, October 23, 1983 was not a good day.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup, BTDT
The flag thing was too funny in an ironic sort of way not to post it. Get your panties in a bunch for all I care, it's still funny.
In any other place it would have been funny indeed and i would _admit_ to getting a chuckle ;) ..
its just becomming such a comming thing here..
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In any other place it would have been funny indeed and i would _admit_ to getting a chuckle ;) ..
its just becomming such a comming thing here..
America gets her fair share as well. If france can't take it they should take their ball, go home, and quit being a country all together. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
and now its 2000
how many has America commited?
How many has your country committed?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
How many has your country committed?
200+ this time. They are waiting for the "go" by UN.
-
A peacekeeping force with such low numbers...I dunno.
Im glad we didnt get sucked into this one. Bosnia comes to mind
-
Originally posted by LePaul
A peacekeeping force with such low numbers...I dunno.
Im glad we didnt get sucked into this one. Bosnia comes to mind
They are crews and support personel for 4 MTBs (fast attack craft) Our forces for over seas duty are getting pretty stretched: Keep in mind the small population we have and that we have forces commited in Afghanistan and a force is getting ready for UN operations in Africa.
In total over 34000 Norwegians have served in Lebanon since 1977.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
and now its 2000
how many has America commited?
We lost 241 there before. They would attack us again and then we would pick up where Israel left off....while the French pull out. Is that what you want? Or do you think it is just good policy to land a couple American divisions in Lebanon?
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
We lost 241 there before. They would attack us again and then we would pick up where Israel left off....while the French pull out. Is that what you want? Or do you think it is just good policy to land a couple American divisions in Lebanon?
When i posted 2000 i was replying to the comment that you made that indicated 200. You were wrong and made it sound like they committed few troops.. 2000 is not few and in no way deserves your " :rolleyes: "
If you are going to roll your eyes at something then make sure you do so with the facts on your side. ;)
-
To be fair, they had to be embarrassed to commit the 2K.
-
Think they said the rules of engagement where unclear.
-
PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE
US troops as "peackeepers" in lebanon would do more harm than good. I thought that would be blatently obvious.
-
Originally posted by Rino
To be fair, they had to be embarrassed to commit the 2K.
True indeed, but they did. They were not as stubborn as they can be and that is what counts in the end.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE
US troops as "peackeepers" in lebanon would do more harm than good. I thought that would be blatently obvious.
It is obvious, but the person that rolled his eyes about the commitment number (that also was not correct) cant really complain about those numbers if his own country has committed none.
That would be like if I rolled my eyes at the numbers of soldiers that the US has commited to Iraq (an example ofcourse) while my own committed none.
-
US troops in Lebanon?!?!?!?
Highly doubtful that the UN would even consider it..... hell, we'd more than likely disarm Hezbollah. Thats something ole' Kofi wouldn't like now is it! :rolleyes:
-
We disarmed Iraq and Afghanistan so quickly and easily, Hezbollah should be no problem. :aok
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
When i posted 2000 i was replying to the comment that you made that indicated 200. You were wrong and made it sound like they committed few troops.. 2000 is not few and in no way deserves your " :rolleyes: "
If you are going to roll your eyes at something then make sure you do so with the facts on your side. ;)
France to send 200 soldiers to Lebanon
Friday 18 August 2006, 2:29 Makka Time, 23:29 GMT
Chirac's announcement has disappointed UN officials
France has said that it will initially provide only 200 soldiers for a new UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, which has disappointed some UN officials who had hoped for a contribution of thousands
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lye-El
Initially, they commited to a whole div....err...200.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The keyword being initially. I believe my facts are correct.
:D
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
France to send 200 soldiers to Lebanon
Friday 18 August 2006, 2:29 Makka Time, 23:29 GMT
Chirac's announcement has disappointed UN officials
France has said that it will initially provide only 200 soldiers for a new UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, which has disappointed some UN officials who had hoped for a contribution of thousands
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lye-El
Initially, they commited to a whole div....err...200.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The keyword being initially. I believe my facts are correct.
:D
ehh ok...
initially America committed 0 to ww2 :D
waa waaaa...hehe