Bad Gag

[djnvcm]

BAD GAG instead of BAGDAD.......From today's newspaper "le Canard enchainé" discussing about the fact that the war is not going the way it was scheduled at first (iraki people not really welcoming americans).

After checking with my best english dictionnary , I see two meanings for GAG which are both fully relevant in the current situation on both sides:
1/ a joke or funny story
2/ something put over or into the mouth to keep it still or esp. to prevent the person from talking or shouting.

Isn't it ?

[minusthejihad]

I personally don't see anything funny about a war where people are dying daily. But you are from France, so I culd see the excuse.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by djnvcm
BAD GAG instead of BAGDAD.......From today's newspaper "le Canard enchainé" discussing about the fact that the war is not going the way it was scheduled at first (iraki people not really welcoming americans).

2 Quick Points about how the war is going:

#1. One of the reasons our troops are dying happens to be the sandstorms that are raging now. The reason they are encountering these sandstorms is that our French enemies have misused the UN to delay this war specifically to cause the U.S. casualties by running into the sand storm season in Iraq.

Now it is happening.

I hold the French accountable, and hope that our government remembers after the war that the French collaborated with Saddam Hussein, resulting in the killing of our soldiers.

#2. Another reason we have not yet wiped out the Iraqi army is we, as an ethical and humanitarian nation, decided that we would not bomb Iraqi military facilities that are operating inside civilian structures.

As we now see, the Iraqi headquarters is located in a childcare center, full of children, and Iraqi troops, ammunition and even tanks are located in hospitals.

Likewise, Iraqi Fedayeen terrorist troops are marching civilians in front of them while shooting at American forces.

But European hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Before the war, they complained that they were concerned with Iraqi civilians. Now, that the war is on and we are taking it slowly and carefully to avoid civilian casualties, the Europeans are now complaining that we are not winning the war quickly enough.

So, where is the Europeans' humanity they speak of so much? Was that discussed in the French press? I doubt it...

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I personally don't see anything funny about a war where people are dying daily. But you are from France, so I culd see the excuse.

But then you should not have started it !!!!!!!!!!

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by djnvcm
But then you should not have started it !!!!!!!!!!

What? Who me? What the hell are you talking about schmuck?

By the way, what ever parrallels or laughs you were trying to draw with your poor sense of humor have not been the least amusing to say the least. Maybe in your head, but no ones laughing. You're not funny, and unless you have a point to make here, I suggest you go piss off.

[andak01]

The reason they are encountering these sandstorms is that our French enemies have misused the UN to delay this war specifically to cause the U.S. casualties by running into the sand storm season in Iraq.

Formidable! So it's the French that control the weather now, not God? The arrogant, including Saddam will pay the price for their arrogance. To think that the American military with all of their technology is a match for a sandstorm or a hurricane is the height of arrogance.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by andak01
Formidable! So it's the French that control the weather now, not God?

For the benefit of those who are having difficulty grasping the connection between the French delaying tactics and the fact that the US is now fighting in bad Iraqi springtime weather conditions:

Meteorologists and climatologists study weather patterns. They have discovered that starting around late March, sand storms start to be a big problem in Iraq. Historical data bears this out. Sandstorms in January would not have been the problem they are now -- because that's not when sandstorms in Iraq happen for the most part. Thus, French delaying tactics (and the fact the US rolled over for French delaying tactics) are the reason US, UK, and Australian troops are having to work in sandstorm conditions now.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by cerulean
For the benefit of those who are having difficulty grasping the connection between the French delaying tactics and the fact that the US is now fighting in bad Iraqi springtime weather conditions:

Meteorologists and climatologists study weather patterns. They have discovered that starting around late March, sand storms start to be a big problem in Iraq. Historical data bears this out. Sandstorms in January would not have been the problem they are now -- because that's not when sandstorms in Iraq happen for the most part. Thus, French delaying tactics (and the fact the US rolled over for French delaying tactics) are the reason US, UK, and Australian troops are having to work in sandstorm conditions now.

No I disagree,
the main reason is because the US have unilateraly decided to start the war. If this was not happening The UN inspectors will today work with sandstorms. The war could have been avoided and democracy promoted in a pacific way

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by djnvcm
No I disagree,
the main reason is because the US have unilateraly decided to start the war. If this was not happening The UN inspectors will today work with sandstorms. The war could have been avoided and democracy promoted in a pacific way
Actually, the UN inspections have nothing to do with promoting democracy.

And, the U.S. has not acted unilaterally. In fact, the coalition now numbers about 50 countries, while France and Germany are now an increasingly irrelevant minority opposition.

France's only "accomplishment," if you can call it that, was to cause the death of American and British troops by pushing the war into the sand storm season.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
France's only "accomplishment," if you can call it that, was to cause the death of American and British troops by pushing the war into the sand storm season.

I have to say, I knew nothing of this weather factor - is it alledged that France did this deliberately because they wanted to push the war into such areas?

And please can we stop this wanton reference to "Europe" being hypocrites etc etc etc?

I'm British, and our lads are dying out there too. yet we are part of Europe, and any reference to Europe naturally therefore includes the British. So to slag off Europe's attitude to the war is to slag off the attitude of the British soldiers who are risking their lives or have given their lives for this war, and that, I am not prepared to let go.

[mimil]

This is quite interesting that now you come and put the weather forecast in the story. It has been in the mind of everybody since the very beginning of the UN crisis.

US: If we don't finish this war by May, we are in trouble. (Sand storm, temperatures rising to 45 degrees and more, not the best weather for the troops and material)

Europe (If Britain I guess at that time): If inspection starts in November, if war there is it cannot be before October the next year. They cannot finish the job in 5 month, this is not an inspection.

That was the starting line. It just proves that the US knew since the beginning they will go to war. Which is what demonstrate by the way that they never even consider any other solution, especially when you look at the way the diplomacy at that time was handled.

You blame the french for the weather, you should blame yourself for the poor way you handled this crisis you created.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by mimil
you should blame yourself for the poor way you handled this crisis you created. I don't think you should really "blame yourself", or it's too early to do so.


But the least you can do is take your own responsibilities.

The US forced the world into this war, and a majority of nations tried to stop or at least to delay it. The US just didn't listen. Wether is global warming, promoting international regulation, creating a world tribunal to judge genocide-makers, you name it, the US is just acting unilaterally.


For good or ill, take your own responsibilities goddam!



What shall result in your behavior is not yet know. Personnally I see a huge drawback for democracy, liberty, tolerance friendship among nations and an ugly boost to martyrdom and terrorism.
It's not only overthrowing Saddam, there is much more at stake the fate of humanity for next century I'd say...

You can agree with me or not, this can be discussed.

One thing is certain, our present actions can still change the future and it's no time to complain about the past.


First, take your own responsibilities, then let's try to find a way out.
Shall it be a way out together or not ? For me that's what is at stake now.


But take your own responsibilities first.
You are drivin' pal (more than me no doubt and against me at say 90%). And so you have been for the beginning of this crisis.


.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by peacelover
I'm British, and our lads are dying out there too. yet we are part of Europe, and any reference to Europe naturally therefore includes the British. Let's talk a bit about Europe together peacelover.

I've had something 'on my heart' for a while I want to tell you.


I am very sorry of the breakdown in franco-british relations (and globally about the disruption of relations between europeans governement).


I am sorry if the french undermined the actions of honest people such as Jack Straw and Tony Blair the way it was done. Basically I do not see any other way we could have done it. Europe could not be all behind the US, but Europe could not be all against the US or that would have completely severed the transatlantic relations with huge consequences. Britsh soldiers just had to be there.

The bottom line is "However painfull, I think you did the right, the only possible thing".


I wish some harmony between our nations can be restored and we can act together again in the future. I hope you wish so as well.

.

[mimil]

I totally agree with yehudi on this point, the british position is the hardest of all, and I have great repsect for Mr Blair and the british involvement.

"And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine."

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by djnvcm
BAD GAG instead of BAGDAD.......From today's newspaper "le Canard enchainé" discussing about the fact that the war is not going the way it was scheduled at first (iraki people not really welcoming americans).

After checking with my best english dictionnary , I see two meanings for GAG which are both fully relevant in the current situation on both sides:
1/ a joke or funny story
2/ something put over or into the mouth to keep it still or esp. to prevent the person from talking or shouting.

Isn't it ?

There's a third meaning:

3/ the reflex of having an object rammed down your throat.

[Alfred]

We are in a world turned upside down.

My favorite quote; author unknown....


"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany doesn't want to go to war."


The British troops are doing a fantastic job in the Gulf, and they are both an ally and a friend. The term "ally" can only be applied under certain circumstances, and the interests of the countries involved determine whether they want to be an ally.

The Brits did not want a part of Viet Nam...so they were not an "ally" during that war. But they were a "friend" because they did not support the enemy.

France is neither an ally or a friend. As they are not taking part in helping us win the war, and because they are actively supporting our enemy....in the UN, in the world, in the media, by shipping weapons and by trying to turn our "allies" against us. That is why we hate the French at the moment. Because we thought they were a friend.

Naive of us wasn't it?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Alfred
France is neither an ally or a friend. As they are not taking part in helping us win the war, and because they are actively supporting our enemy....in the UN, in the world, in the media, by shipping weapons and by trying to turn our "allies" against us. That is why we hate the French at the moment. Back to the Bush method "Either with me or against me".

All Jews are anti-arab racists
All Arabs are antisemits
All Germans are nazis

Believe it or not there is an alternative to you worldviews.


Hopefully

.

[Mediocrates]

OTOH whomever wants to participate in a post war Iraq must do so cognizant that there are issues and options beyond their own. It's not clear the French, Russians, Germans are willing to abide that. If all they want is a piece of the action I guess they'll have to wait in line.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by mimil
I totally agree with yehudi on this point, the british position is the hardest of all, and I have great respect for Mr Blair and the british involvement. How could we turn our friendship with Mr Blair, the most European guy on 10 downing street ever into that mess?


Once more, I get the feeling I'm shooting myself in the foot


Thank you America, well done. Go on promoting anarchy into this unstable world

.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by yehudi
Go on promoting anarchy into this unstable world



I'm sure the rest of the world has done a good job of that all on their own. I was talking to a cabdriver yesterday. He is from Congo. He is the only one of his extended family of over 30 people to make it out. He expects they are all dead.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by mimil
That was the starting line. It just proves that the US knew since the beginning they will go to war. Which is what demonstrate by the way that they never even consider any other solution, especially when you look at the way the diplomacy at that time was handled.

Well, I'm not sure if you have access to news reports, but over here, it was obvious that Saddam Hussein, backed by his French and German allies, insisted on having his entire military devastated, rather than comply with mandatory UN resolutions. It was Iraq that created this war -- not the U.S. and its 50-state coalition.

But still, Saddam had many opportunities to change the outcome, before the war started. War was not a given until the very end.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Alfred
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany doesn't want to go to war."

:D

[peacelover]

Originally posted by yehudi
Let's talk a bit about Europe together peacelover.

I've had something 'on my heart' for a while I want to tell you.


I am very sorry of the breakdown in franco-british relations (and globally about the disruption of relations between europeans governement).


I am sorry if the french undermined the actions of honest people such as Jack Straw and Tony Blair the way it was done. Basically I do not see any other way we could have done it. Europe could not be all behind the US, but Europe could not be all against the US or that would have completely severed the transatlantic relations with huge consequences. Britsh soldiers just had to be there.

The bottom line is "However painfull, I think you did the right, the only possible thing".


I wish some harmony between our nations can be restored and we can act together again in the future. I hope you wish so as well.

.

I hope so too. I have certain issues with France (most countries have certain issues with each other, to varying degrees of course!), but France is a democratic neighbour of ours, and we have been through a lot together. I feel a lot better now than I would have done in 1812 when we were fighting!

Besides, I didn't spend so many years of my life learning the damn language so we could just fall out! :(

[yehudi]

Originally posted by peacelover
I hope so too. I have certain issues with France (most countries have certain issues with each other, to varying degrees of course!), but France is a democratic neighbour of ours, and we have been through a lot together. I feel a lot better now than I would have done in 1812 when we were fighting! I got issues with you too. Especially with these goddam tabloids. You know after a while it really gets you down.

Still we'd better keep the urgent issues on the top of the agenda for a while. I suggest we should concentrate on "how to put the world order back on track".

As soon as we're done we'll proceed on to with the stop-tabloiding-me business ;) .

[Alfred]

Originally posted by yehudi
Back to the Bush method "Either with me or against me".

Believe it or not there is an alternative to you worldviews.
.


Yehudi:

You know Yehudi; sometimes I feel like I am talking to a 3rd grader.

But perhaps I am not doing a good job of making myself clear. So, I will try, one last time, and use little words.


You have friends, and you have allies. Sometimes you have both.

The Soviets in WW2 were our Allies but not our friends.
The British in VietNam were our friends but not our Allies

A friend you can count on to not stab you in the back. An ally you can count on....to a point...to help you in a specific task.

A friend is more important than an ally.

The British are both our friends and are ally in this war.
The Canadians are our friends but not our ally in this war.

The French are not our ally and are not our friend.

If France had been a friend of the USA they would have done what Canada did regarding this war. They would have said that they do not agree with the USA position, and that they would not provide assistance, and then shut up.

The French on the other hand have fought us in the UN, fought us in NATO, fought us at the EU, fought us in the world media, fought us behind the scene.....they have tried to turn Turkey against us (and succeeded), and at all times are aiding our enemy Iraq as much as they can. They have also lobbied Russia, China and Germany to form a counter balance to the USA in world affairs...not just against our Iraq position, but for all positions.

That is not a friend.....that is an enemy....albeit an enemy that smiles when he stabs you in the back.

The reason the USA is so ticked off at France is that the USA assumed, mistakenly and very naively, that France was a friend.

If you cannot understand the above, then I should assume that you do not want to understand the above.

By the way. We are upset with Turkey NOT because they turned us down. We are upset with Turkey because they dragged us along and kept promising that we could use their territory....then turned us down when we needed them most.

America has learned a lesson. France and Turkey are on our list. We are also a bit peaved at Russia and Germany, but as these countries are IMPORTANT countries, we are going to have to work with them.

[Alfred]

Peacelover:

I was not a fan of PM Blair during the 1990's because I saw him as another empy suit like our esteemed former embarassment... Herr Clinton.

Blair, however, has shown real fortitude since 9-11, and I am very much impressed with him. I may disagree with his politics, but, unlike Clinton, he is NOT an empty suit.

One of my biggest disagreements with Blair was his hell-bent desire to move into the EU and give up the British Pound. These actions I see as giving up, in the long run, the sovereinty of the British.

The British are too honorable and important a people to surrender their sovereinty to a collection of lessor countries.

I hope that the British people...and Tony Blair...now see that they should be more careful with this move to become sub-serviant to a EU body.

What is the talk in the UK about this subject....post UN debacle over Iraq?

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
Yehudi:

You know Yehudi; sometimes I feel like I am talking to a 3rd grader.

But perhaps I am not doing a good job of making myself clear. So, I will try, one last time, and use little words.


You have friends, and you have allies. Sometimes you have both.

The Soviets in WW2 were our Allies but not our friends.
The British in VietNam were our friends but not our Allies

A friend you can count on to not stab you in the back. An ally you can count on....to a point...to help you in a specific task.

A friend is more important than an ally.

The British are both our friends and are ally in this war.
The Canadians are our friends but not our ally in this war.

The French are not our ally and are not our friend.

If France had been a friend of the USA they would have done what Canada did regarding this war. They would have said that they do not agree with the USA position, and that they would not provide assistance, and then shut up.

The French on the other hand have fought us in the UN, fought us in NATO, fought us at the EU, fought us in the world media, fought us behind the scene.....they have tried to turn Turkey against us (and succeeded), and at all times are aiding our enemy Iraq as much as they can. They have also lobbied Russia, China and Germany to form a counter balance to the USA in world affairs...not just against our Iraq position, but for all positions.

That is not a friend.....that is an enemy....albeit an enemy that smiles when he stabs you in the back.

The reason the USA is so ticked off at France is that the USA assumed, mistakenly and very naively, that France was a friend.

If you cannot understand the above, then I should assume that you do not want to understand the above.

By the way. We are upset with Turkey NOT because they turned us down. We are upset with Turkey because they dragged us along and kept promising that we could use their territory....then turned us down when we needed them most.

America has learned a lesson. France and Turkey are on our list. We are also a bit peaved at Russia and Germany, but as these countries are IMPORTANT countries, we are going to have to work with them.

It's funny your definition of friends and ally. To resume, an ally is nothing more than a co-worker, you can't stand him, but you work together. As for friends, as long as they shut up and agree everybody is a welcomed friend.

It is also funny how you make a point about important countries. It sounds like, we can't stand them either as they don't shut up, but they are dam important, so we'll have to deal with them, maybe they could fall under the ally definition.

Just to remind you of something, such view of the world reflect a lack of self-identity. Like a tough kid in a playground trying to get recognition for what he is. He sticks with the other big guys, welcome anyone who will praise him, and doesn't like anyone who questions him.

Finally, who are you to talk in the name of America like this? I find it quite arrogant to talk in the name of your nation.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
It's funny your definition of friends and ally. To resume, an ally is nothing more than a co-worker, you can't stand him, but you work together. As for friends, as long as they shut up and agree everybody is a welcomed friend.

It is also funny how you make a point about important countries. It sounds like, we can't stand them either as they don't shut up, but they are dam important, so we'll have to deal with them, maybe they could fall under the ally definition.

Just to remind you of something, such view of the world reflect a lack of self-identity. Like a tough kid in a playground trying to get recognition for what he is. He sticks with the other big guys, welcome anyone who will praise him, and doesn't like anyone who questions him.

Finally, who are you to talk in the name of America like this? I find it quite arrogant to talk in the name of your nation.

I agree with everything he said. That makes two Americans....

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I agree with everything he said. That makes two Americans....

Johnny, I didn't expect you to say otherwise :D

[Alfred]

Originally posted by mimil
It's funny your definition of friends and ally. To resume, an ally is nothing more than a co-worker, you can't stand him, but you work together. As for friends, as long as they shut up and agree everybody is a welcomed friend.

Clearly, you did not understand my post....I am sorry. I did use little words.


It is also funny how you make a point about important countries. It sounds like, we can't stand them either as they don't shut up, but they are dam important, so we'll have to deal with them, maybe they could fall under the ally definition.

Yes, there are important countries and there are less important countries. Russia, China, the UK, Japan, Germany are important countries. France, Belgium, Singapore and others are less important. I am sorry if this bothers you. All PEOPLE however, are important to me....that is why I am trying to help you understand.


Just to remind you of something, such view of the world reflect a lack of self-identity. Like a tough kid in a playground trying to get recognition for what he is. He sticks with the other big guys, welcome anyone who will praise him, and doesn't like anyone who questions him.

On no, you are wrong there. It is called REAL POLITIK. We need to keep the Russians and Chinese talking with us for the betterment of the world at large. You do not want us to get into a nuclear war do you?

Finally, who are you to talk in the name of America like this? I find it quite arrogant to talk in the name of your nation.


I have an official certificate here....hold on, I will get it. Ah yes, it is from the Almighty Wizard. It says: "Diploma" Yes, I do have a brain and it was granted by the Wizard of Oz....what do you have?

[Donna]

Originally posted by mimil
Finally, who are you to talk in the name of America like this? I find it quite arrogant to talk in the name of your nation. [/B]

Feel free to count me among the arrogant. Thanks! :cool:

[Alfred]

Welcome to the "arrogant club" Donna.

"Oh Lord, It's hard to be humble.....when your perfect in every way...."

(Famous group song taught to the Bush Youth (Busher Jugend)....mandatory, to be sung at every Party meeting)

[yehudi]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
it was obvious that Saddam Hussein, backed by his French and German allies Just a point. The guy you heard above is nothing less than the very owner of this whole site. And I think he actually believes what he says.

I wouldn't go as far as saying we would have already nuked Israel if it was so, but well.
German/Israel or France/Israel relations are not that bad.


I'm happy about our country's relation being let's say warm to lukewarm. But I see your are repeatedly using this forum to destroy, worsen them.
Every time France or Germany does something positive with Israel you ignore it. Every time there is the littlest manifestation of anti-semitism you turn it into an international issue.


Why? Do you really think it's in the interest of Israel, NewsGuy? Turning this site into an instrument of war instead of peace. Why?


.

[expat]

Originally posted by yehudi
Back to the Bush method "Either with me or against me".

All Jews are anti-arab racists
All Arabs are antisemits
All Germans are nazis

Believe it or not there is an alternative to you worldviews.


Hopefully

.

No, that's not what Bush said.

What Bush actually said was "If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists." He was trying to point out that any attempt by any nation to try to pretend to neutrality in practice aided the terrorists. If you refuse to admit that the war can come to your own nation, then you will refuse to do anything about the operations of terrorists in your territory, and that gives them free reign to do whatever they can there.

Which is what Indonesia found out in the Bali bombing: the terrorist will attack anywhere they think they can, and they'll operate where they're permitted to. The government of Indonesia spent most of a year in full denial, claiming that there was no chance of anything like that happening there, and that the warnings from the US ambassador and others were racist slander. Then a bomb went off, hundreds were killed, and the Indonesian tourist industry (one of their major sources of hard currency) is in deep trouble. What Bush tried to warn the leaders of the world is that in this war neutrality isn't possible. It isn't that the US will treat as enemies all nations who don't outright claim to support us, it's that the terrorists will take advantage of the benign conditions in countries trying to stay neutral.

[mimil]

Originally posted by expat


Which is what Indonesia found out in the Bali bombing: the terrorist will attack anywhere they think they can, and they'll operate where they're permitted to. The government of Indonesia spent most of a year in full denial, claiming that there was no chance of anything like that happening there, and that the warnings from the US ambassador and others were racist slander. Then a bomb went off, hundreds were killed, and the Indonesian tourist industry (one of their major sources of hard currency) is in deep trouble. What Bush tried to warn the leaders of the world is that in this war neutrality isn't possible. It isn't that the US will treat as enemies all nations who don't outright claim to support us, it's that the terrorists will take advantage of the benign conditions in countries trying to stay neutral.

Thank you for explaining what Mr. Bush says; sometimes I am too sure he knows what he is saying himself. His metaphor with "poker" despite being hilarious is totally useless and have no meaning. It is time to show your cards. He is a funny guy after all. Blair's talks are of a different level, you could even see he was embarrassed for him. Before you start saying the same about me, remember that I am not the president of the United States :D.

Anyway, the point about Indonesia, let's go back to it. Indonesia was enrolled in the Asia economic burst of the beginning of the 90's. They were promised with a prosperous future and a better life for all the nation if they were to embrace the capitalist free market ideology. Which they did, capital flow in, everybody was making money, everybody was happy. Not quite. The Asian crisis made all this capital disappear as fast as they appeared, the gross income of Indonesia went down 60%. I don't know if you can imagine in what chaos any western country will be in if this was to happen. A direct consequence of this, and religion being the opium of the people, they turned to it to find a better ideology, and some got enrolled in to extremist groups, that started with oppressing what represented capitalism in the region: The Chinese. This was long before 911. Eventually they went on with Caucasian.

We should look at the cause of the problem rather than just turning it into an evil machine. What do you want to do? Go invade Indonesia an blame then for what is happening?

If so do it fast, don't wait, it will be worst later. We can always argue afterwards about whether we went in too early or not. Beside I am quite sure Indonesia doesn't have much defense if it is for its people, but we are used to that aren’t we? Another pile of dead body is just another pile of dead bodies, not the best ones anyway, beside they will be free dead bodies! I forgot, there is nothing to gain there, only rain forest, who needs trees? Maybe they have a little oil on the Borneo side, but it's all been prospected and shell is already there. I am glad they are safe.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Alfred
One of my biggest disagreements with Blair was his hell-bent desire to move into the EU and give up the British Pound. These actions I see as giving up, in the long run, the sovereinty of the British.

Somehow I bet that it will be harder than ever to get the Euro introduced in Britain, after all this. Have you read anything on the subject lately? Does Blair still want that?

[mimil]

Originally posted by cerulean
Somehow I bet that it will be harder than ever to get the Euro introduced in Britain, after all this. Have you read anything on the subject lately? Does Blair still want that?

I wonder who should be worshiped for such a great achievement.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by djnvcm
No I disagree,
the main reason is because the US have unilateraly decided to start the war. If this was not happening The UN inspectors will today work with sandstorms. The war could have been avoided and democracy promoted in a pacific way

Rubbish,

Chirac have chosen the Path of Fear and Greed and not the path of peace. You and I know that Total-Fina-Elf is the main palyer in Irak, that this company signed a contract 10 years ago to get in frist when the sanctions are lifted, that it was France (Chirac again) that sold nuclear technology to Saddam, that it was France that put Khomenei in place a few years before that, that it is Chirac that has imposed terrorist in Ivory Coast (where was the UN)??

I am ashame of France position, even though I understand WHY they are doing this. Chirac, independantly of Irak, has chosen the arab world over the US. Bottom line he prefers "l'Islam de France" over Mc Donalds. But he did nothing except lower French stature in the world for a VERY RISKY gamble. Trying to create a Federated Europe where he and the Germans will be in control to rival the US. In order to achieve this he is ready to make the UN irrelevant but he forgot something important: France only got a veto because they had 40% of the world 60 years ago, today their is ground for Europe to have a veto but not France - therefore what is the point to have a veto of an organizatin that no longer exists or is irrelevant?

[Mediocrates]

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is irrelevant why the French did what they did. Whatever reason they have or can explain or defend is nearly besides the point by now. Now they have a new set of challegnges. They can continue to be the voice of "NO" or they can deal and compromise and include themselves in the post war process. If their basic approach is to say "France's Way or No Way" then they will continue to fill the role of roadside beggar/protestor/crazy aunt with cats in a dirty baby carriage.

[mimil]

Originally posted by yoyo
Rubbish,

Chirac have chosen the Path of Fear and Greed and not the path of peace. You and I know that Total-Fina-Elf is the main palyer in Irak, that this company signed a contract 10 years ago to get in frist when the sanctions are lifted, that it was France (Chirac again) that sold nuclear technology to Saddam, that it was France that put Khomenei in place a few years before that, that it is Chirac that has imposed terrorist in Ivory Coast (where was the UN)??

I am ashame of France position, even though I understand WHY they are doing this. Chirac, independantly of Irak, has chosen the arab world over the US. Bottom line he prefers "l'Islam de France" over Mc Donalds. But he did nothing except lower French stature in the world for a VERY RISKY gamble. Trying to create a Federated Europe where he and the Germans will be in control to rival the US. In order to achieve this he is ready to make the UN irrelevant but he forgot something important: France only got a veto because they had 40% of the world 60 years ago, today their is ground for Europe to have a veto but not France - therefore what is the point to have a veto of an organizatin that no longer exists or is irrelevant?

You can turn your argument around and it also works perfectly. The US and to a lesser extend Britain have chosen the Path of Fear and Greed and not the path of peace. You and I know that BP, Shell and many other companies are the main player in Iraq, that it was the American and British who armed and supported Saddam’s regime. […]Great Britain only got a veto because they had 40% of the world 60 years ago, today there is ground for Europe to have a veto but not Great Britain - therefore what is the point to have a veto of an organization that no longer exists or is irrelevant? By the way, looking at what you say, it might be about time Great Britain works it way to Europe, they would have greater prospect that just being America toy.

Chirac decided to oppose the US on a diplomatic level, he threatened to use a veto that has been used hundreds of time, by the Russian, American, Chinese and English alike. It is a political tool and should be seen as one. I think we ought to remember that this veto in fact was never used, and that in fact, the vote never took place, and that in fact we don’t even know if there was a ground for the use of veto as the 9 required votes were far from being won. The outcome was that France was the target to blame for the failure of the talks, insisting a little on media did the job quite correctly. America simply failed the political arena fight, and got more than upset about it. This eventually put Great Britain in a rather inconvenient citation that they handled very well.

France in the end is a very stupid country, they never hide things very much and tend to acknowledge them. In the flow of world arm business, they are not very significant, but manage to be seen whenever they do something. The French are always the perfect scapegoat. You should turn your anger into laughter.

Then let’s look at little further, what power does Europe have as a whole on international issue? Well not much. They are a representative force as a whole, but seem to be left aside whenever it comes to world order. Germany is in the UN, but they are not permanent members. France and Great Britain are also there, but never agree on such issue, china just asks for more funds or a little bit of understanding for some of the business they are doing, Russia is in a similar position. The US is left as the only driving power as they can handle everybody. The French even if they don’t agree always change their mind with a little bit of pressure. America made a gamble and they failed. They asked everybody for their opinion on the crisis, hoping that everybody will pretend to argue and finally accept US unconditional conditions. Well the French have a little bit of pride also, and said, well you ask me I tell what I think: FU.

The American managed in the end a magnificent move. If England was to strengthen his position in the European union, they represent a serious threat to the US hegemony. The second largest economy, but the possibility from its very nature, to enroll more nation, Two veto at the UN, a multicultural environment with both cultural and business links in many parts of the world. Social development more advance than anywhere else, a true ground for a future world leading coalition. If only France and England could overcome there difference.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by mimil
You can turn your argument around and it also works perfectly. The US and to a lesser extend Britain have chosen the Path of Fear and Greed and not the path of peace. You and I know that BP, Shell and many other companies are the main player in Iraq, that it was the American and British who armed and supported Saddam’s regime. […]Great Britain only got a veto because they had 40% of the world 60 years ago, today there is ground for Europe to have a veto but not Great Britain - therefore what is the point to have a veto of an organization that no longer exists or is irrelevant? By the way, looking at what you say, it might be about time Great Britain works it way to Europe, they would have greater prospect that just being America toy.


No you can't turn the argument. It is Total-Fina-Elf that has the majority of the "oil for food" program and has signed the most contract with Saddam 10 years ago to get their hand on the petrol once the sanctions are lifted. The path of "greed" maybe, if on think that petrol is the ONLY reason Bush went to Iraq, I happen to think it is one of the reason, not all of the reasons. Saddam was armed by the West - not only the US. As for the UK and Europe, that will require a whole new thread :)

Originally posted by mimil

Chirac decided to oppose the US on a diplomatic level, he threatened to use a veto that has been used hundreds of time, by the Russian, American, Chinese and English alike. It is a political tool and should be seen as one. I think we ought to remember that this veto in fact was never used, and that in fact, the vote never took place, and that in fact we don’t even know if there was a ground for the use of veto as the 9 required votes were far from being won. The outcome was that France was the target to blame for the failure of the talks, insisting a little on media did the job quite correctly. America simply failed the political arena fight, and got more than upset about it. This eventually put Great Britain in a rather inconvenient citation that they handled very well.


I agree on one point, if the UK (as the US don't give a damn) could have had the 9 "moral majority" vote, they would have gone for it. I am even sure the French would have probably abstained, then. America did not failed in the political arena, France own interest have ridiculed the UN. It was clear what 1441 said, France voted for it without wanting to apply it - ever.

Originally posted by mimil
France in the end is a very stupid country, they never hide things very much and tend to acknowledge them. In the flow of world arm business, they are not very significant, but manage to be seen whenever they do something. The French are always the perfect scapegoat. You should turn your anger into laughter.


France is not stupid, they are indeed very intelligent with a great experience of the world which unlike America they conquered for centuries. France ALWAYS hide things, there is not more conniving than the French (maybe the British). Chirac is ready in broad daylight to use "peace" feeling on the streets of the world to get what he wants. Of course "everyone does it" you will say and yes I agree "everyone does it".

Originally posted by mimil
Then let’s look at little further, what power does Europe have as a whole on international issue? Well not much. They are a representative force as a whole, but seem to be left aside whenever it comes to world order. Germany is in the UN, but they are not permanent members. France and Great Britain are also there, but never agree on such issue, china just asks for more funds or a little bit of understanding for some of the business they are doing, Russia is in a similar position. The US is left as the only driving power as they can handle everybody. The French even if they don’t agree always change their mind with a little bit of pressure. America made a gamble and they failed. They asked everybody for their opinion on the crisis, hoping that everybody will pretend to argue and finally accept US unconditional conditions. Well the French have a little bit of pride also, and said, well you ask me I tell what I think: FU.


Europe (the EU) has no political power even when "united" but they are equal in market shares to the US (15% of trade worldwide). 1 Euro is roughly 1 dollar. Arab countries (OPEC) start to want to deal petrol in Euros, the Americans use everything they can to keep the status quo of trading petrol in dollar. And drop the idea that it was pride that drove the french, if anything it was bowing down in front of islam, in front of the arabs.

Originally posted by mimil
The American managed in the end a magnificent move. If England was to strengthen his position in the European union, they represent a serious threat to the US hegemony. The second largest economy, but the possibility from its very nature, to enroll more nation, Two veto at the UN, a multicultural environment with both cultural and business links in many parts of the world. Social development more advance than anywhere else, a true ground for a future world leading coalition. If only France and England could overcome there difference.

The American may have brought tension between the French and hte British but they two fought the previous years without US involvement. Once Chirac slammed the door at a EU summit after meeting Blair 10 minutes, saying "noone ever talked to me like this". At the end of the day, the British publique may like it or not but 70% of their trade are with Europe. They will go into Europe, screaming and kicking or they will have to be ruinned and start from scratch (or become an offshore island). Europe is growing, it may take 15 years, it may take 25 years but Europe will be federated. At which point if America is still as powerful there will be a dangerous situation, as 2 massive dinausaures on the same planet will always fight for power. A bit like the UN palava before the war on Iraq, at time it was more of a "dick size" competition than real politique.

[mimil]

Originally posted by yoyo
it was more of a "dick size" competition than real politique.

I'll remember that one.
Cheers.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by yehudi
German/Israel or France/Israel relations are not that bad.

But they are not that good either. I would say that should germany not be bound by European doctrines, the situation would be better but that is only because there is still guilt for WWII. Europe talks with Arafat - everyone knows Arafat is a terrorist set on massacre the Jews. Europe continues to give large amount of money to Arafat and judging by his starving people I suspect ALL of the money goes into private bank account or bombs in Tel Aviv cafes.

France is the one that kept Arafat alive (much like they kept Khomenni and Saddam alive). No later than yesterday, Germany Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer refused to meet IRsraeli Minister of Justice Tommy Lapid in East Jerusalem - the meeting was cancelled. Israel, I believe, use to have better relation with France before the Suez crisis, then it went down hill.


Originally posted by yehudi
Every time France or Germany does something positive with Israel you ignore it. Every time there is the littlest manifestation of anti-semitism you turn it into an international issue.

There is no "littlest" manifestation of antisemitism in France, it is real and it is current. But the hard core of this antisemitism, unlike most of european history, is not Christian, it is Islamic. 7 millions arabs officially (10 millions unofficially) and mostly islamic community is the driving force behind this new antisemitism. Now as far as the french public are concerned there is appathy for the most the rest find the arabs some "understandings" for their action. Sometimes, they managed to rally the french people under false pretention like "against the war on iraq". As far as the French authorities are concerned, antisemitic acts (even speeches) use to be condemn severely a few year back but that was because a few year back it was the National Front (extreme right) that commited it however France has big problem in admitting and dealing with the arabo-muslim antisemitism. They refuse to see it - hey "Islam is Peace". These kind of blank statements do not help the arabo-muslim community to see the "evil" in their midst and it angers jewish victims.

But there is worst. France may get the National Front in less than a decade. The main reason its leader, Jean Marie Le-Pen, was at the second round of French Presidential election is because french people are fed up with the arab youth. That is a national reaction, it may be wrong, but it is the case.


Originally posted by yehudi
Why? Do you really think it's in the interest of Israel, NewsGuy?



.

[mimil]

Originally posted by yoyo


But there is worst. France may get the National Front in less than a decade. The main reason its leader, Jean Marie Le-Pen, was at the second round of French Presidential election is because french people are fed up with the arab youth. That is a national reaction, it may be wrong, but it is the case.


The French and its North African community is indeed a growing problem. The main issue is that unlike the Italian worker that were in a similar position 50 years ago, the Arab will not integrate to the French culture. The French government has simply overlooked the problem for too long, creating a burst of demography in the suburb of cities. It has its own micro economy, based on drugs and robbery, it can not simply be stooped as it will have the whole community go hay wired. It is hard to say whether the problem is purely ethnical or religious or if it simply classes issue. The truth is that the lower class is Muslim and Arab, the amalgams are doing their job and everything is being mixed together. The current answer is toughness, the national police has been increase a great deal, the suburb that used to be a no cop zone is seeing a growing amount of patrols, the law is starting to be applied.

The first thing I would like to mention about Le Pen is that the core of its popularity is about 15 % of the French population. This population is often low-middle classes that are not integrated to the lower class, but leaves in close proximity. They are often growing a lot of hatred toward the Arab population. What happened in the last presidential election is that the voters got entirely sick of the political class that fails to address issues and always the population. On this point I agree with yoyo, a little of patriotism and everyone is happy. It’s pathetic.
I don’t think we are to see Le Pen in the front of the political scene any time soon.

What solution is there to the problem. Le Pen idea is simple, if you are not French by blood maybe even to two-generation back, and more important, if you don’t create any value for the country, you are out. I think the current government understood the gravity of the situation. The first measure they took is to limit as much as possible any new entry in the country. The following problem is to integrate them to the nation. That is definitely the hard part. I believe that they will never adhere to the culture as a whole, but they might so have a sense of belonging to the nation. Marseilles is a good example of such a place where the population of Muslim is even higher than anywhere else in the country and where the cohabitation is not doing to bad. You could also say that it is the place where the National front has the more supporters.

Anyway, I was just trying to give you some info on that. Nobody is to hope for Le Pen to come to power, he has a strong hand but is probably as dangerous as a Bush, those two would probably love each other.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by mimil
It is hard to say whether the problem is purely ethnical or religious or if it simply classes issue. The truth is that the lower class is Muslim and Arab, the amalgams are doing their job and everything is being mixed together. The current answer is toughness, the national police has been increase a great deal, the suburb that used to be a no cop zone is seeing a growing amount of patrols, the law is starting to be applied.

The problem is purely ethnical and religious but it is affected by the class their grand-father started at. Jews, Taiwanese, Chinese, and others have managed to start from nothing and get 1 or 2 "classes" above their parents. The Republican Model have managed to integrate all of these different culture - except one. Yes it is true that Sarko (the new interior minister) has got tough he is faced with years of appathy. What the French wanted was not to get spit at in the Metro, not to get their car burned, and Sarko at the moment seems to deal exclusively with sending new immigrants back home, banning begging and prostituation, this is not the kind of reasons why Le Pen came the nearest he ever been to power.

Originally posted by mimil
The first thing I would like to mention about Le Pen is that the core of its popularity is about 15 % of the French population...
I don’t think we are to see Le Pen in the front of the political scene any time soon.


That is right, Le Pen is about 15%, but the mainstream parties have failed (and they continue to fail) to deal French concerned regarding their "insecurity" , which they perceived as their arabs fellow citizen. Should Chirac fail, Le Pen will be seen as the alternative. Now you have to have grown up in the north of Paris to understand how much the arab youth are acting un-civil but that does not mean their vote for Le Pen will make things right, as he is very close to Hitler. My point is that IF the mainstream party - the right block UMP (as the socialist are dead for the moment) don't makes french feel more secure, Le Pen will at get a lot Depute (Congressman) at the next election.


Originally posted by mimil
What solution is there to the problem. Le Pen idea is simple, if you are not French by blood maybe even to two-generation back, and more important, if you don’t create any value for the country, you are out. I think the current government understood the gravity of the situation.

It is up to Chirac and other leaders to stop acting as if we are all the same. The solution is to be honest with people. For example, the vast community is Algerian - a sizeable amount of them identity with Algeria, a system which their parents and grand-parents run away from. The simple fact that there has never been real demonstration against that system. Instead this hardcore now beats up jews for fun. The french authority answer to that is to declare that 2003 if the France-Algeria year. I can understand that France display their military with the Germans on the 14th of July, they have a lot in common in 2003 but what has France in common with barbaric Algeria?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Just a point. The guy you heard above is nothing less than the very owner of this whole site. And I think he actually believes what he says.

I wouldn't go as far as saying we would have already nuked Israel if it was so, but well.
German/Israel or France/Israel relations are not that bad.


I'm happy about our country's relation being let's say warm to lukewarm. But I see your are repeatedly using this forum to destroy, worsen them.
Every time France or Germany does something positive with Israel you ignore it. Every time there is the littlest manifestation of anti-semitism you turn it into an international issue.


Why? Do you really think it's in the interest of Israel, NewsGuy? Turning this site into an instrument of war instead of peace. Why?


.

Didn't Nostradamus predict that a dictator from the Middle East would destroy Paris? Not that I'm a believer in such things, but wouldn't that be wild?

[Alfred]

Yes he did....


Nostradamas 45:12:1

" And the central city of the weasels will be smote with massive fire and wind. Destruction, great destruction awaits the wicked and traitorous. They that snivel and whine and thrust their chests out in pretended anger will suffer that of the ancient city of Atlantis. The wide avenues shall be broken...the many bridges shall fall and the great tower shall fall. The great tower, an affront to God and to man, shall fall. The king of the weasels shall whine with the hun no more.

"The world will celebrate the fall of the king of the weasels, and will send gifts to one another. Mother shall praise daughter and son shall praise father."

[mimil]

When is it that he also said the end of the world would occur?

[yehudi]

A friend of mine is sure Bush wants to destroy Damas because it is written in the book of the Apocalypse and Bush is a christian fundamentalist.

"hum hum, we'll see, we'll see" I answered him. :p



and looking at the homepage of this site, guess what I see : Newsguy is asking America to invade Syria now http://www.israelforum.com. Not enough blood yet I guess.

[Alfred]

No Yehudi....Christian Fundamentalists want to destroy Paris, but are too nice to bother:)


I don't recall reading anything about Syria falling in the Bible... The Leftist media goes way overboard on this Bush/Christian thing. To the American Left, any Chrisitian is dangerous. They don't seem to mind Lieberman (Jewish) mentioning God, but when a conservative Christian mentions him they start to shake all over.

Don't fret however, If we liberate Syria or Iran it will be for a good, realpolitik, national interest reason...not some Biblical fullfillment reason.

I hope you feel better now.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Alfred
No Yehudi....Christian Fundamentalists want to destroy Paris, but are too nice to bother More than this they want to destroy the whole bloody world and trigger Armageddon :D

Originally posted by Alfred
I don't recall reading anything about Syria falling in the Bible...
Neither do I, but I stopped reading after "the seventh day" (I had to rest too).

Originally posted by Alfred
The Leftist media goes way overboard on this Bush/Christian thing. What I personnally object very strongly to is to start a war of aggression, kill thousands of people and then to say "god bless America".

.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by yehudi
What I personnally object very strongly to is to start a war of aggression, kill thousands of people and then to say "god bless America"

"A war of agression"??? The ar was started by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Then vcam ethe resolution, 687 was the cease fire and demanded many things from him. 12 years has passed, a resolution (1441) reitirated that he was "IN MATERIAL BREACH" (therefore guilty until proven innocent). Since he had not been proven innocent, the cease fire was broken, as was 1441 THEREFORE the "serious consequences" are legal and legitimate.

You should see the scene of JOY of iraqi, who do you think they prefer now? Russi/France/Germany or UK/US? But then again, only France propaganda media "Agence France Press" have the guts to put "the joy of the people" between quotes as if it was UNOTICABLE.

[Alfred]

God Bless America....

The Bastard of Baghdad is on his way out and the Iraqi people will be free.

Well, with one exception.........


It is rumored that no contracts will allowed between Iraq and certain countries in Western Europe and one in Eastern Europe.

I can't remember their names at the moment.....


:) :) :)

[ibrodsky]

Let's not forget that this thread was started to sneer at the US for apparently getting more than it bargained for.

But here we are, not quite 3 weeks after the war started, and Saddam's regime has been toppled. We suffered more casualties in Lebanon from a single terrorist attack than we suffered from this entire war.

And the people of Iraq are jubilant. It turns out they hated Saddam, but were afraid to say so... until today.

So it seems the "bad gag" was the lies peddled by Islamists, France, and much of the US media. We were never seriously bogged down, the plan was excellent, and our conviction that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators was not mere conceit.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
When is it that he also said the end of the world would occur?

Today, for some........

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by djnvcm
BAD GAG instead of BAGDAD.......From today's newspaper "le Canard enchainé" discussing about the fact that the war is not going the way it was scheduled at first (iraki people not really welcoming americans).

After checking with my best english dictionnary , I see two meanings for GAG which are both fully relevant in the current situation on both sides:
1/ a joke or funny story
2/ something put over or into the mouth to keep it still or esp. to prevent the person from talking or shouting.

Isn't it ?

We are sorry to confirm that option 2 is now established to be the more corresponding to the situation