Bush le simplet

Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

Complete and utter nonsense:

1, This isn't a new war, its the completion of one that began and sadly was not finished in 91

2. The UN has itself with the US unanimously passed resolution after resolution condemning your buddy Saddam and mandating that he disarm. unfortunately the level of beaurocracy is so high there, that they can't actually do it themselves. And even if they could, who would do it, ummhmm., the US, so its really the same result in the end, just less time the French and Germans get to feel special and hurt our economy.

3. Oh no, not a resigning demagogue? what next, a sit-in in France?

4. Lastly, only a fool would use the old "what if" arguement. Bush was elected. I didn't want him, but I'm glad Gore wasn't in office during 911. There's where we would have acted like the Europeans - appeasers

The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their chances, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

Originally posted by djnvcm
..... if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

True, I cannot be certain of your nationality merely from the fact that you list france as your location, but your posts clearly seem to be ESL (English as a Second Language. No offense intended).

So, I am assuming the you are, indeed, french. In which case, I am mystified at your use of the word "our" as highlighted above.

Where does a french guy get off, referring to troops of the "Coalition of the Willing" as "our" troops?

Originally posted by Ralph63
.....Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I take issue with your perspective. First of all, unlike yourself, I live in the United States, have been in the Service of this country, and am cogizant of the general state of our military preparedness. Not an expert by any means. But, I consider your analysis to be unfounded, especially since you chose to just "throw" it out there with no attribution.

If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

Originally posted by MichaelC
If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003.

Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

Alfred, as usual you are cracking me up here! It must be a real "hoot' to sit around and hoist a beer with ya. Of course, being as you are located in SLC, you might not be into that sort of thing. Nonetheless, I like your sense of humor.

I expect there will some french-oriented person along shortly with no sense of humor at all to take you to task for your vile, rascist ways.

[minusthejihad]

ah the French? forget about them, too much attention anyway. I do hope that we will go through with the rest of those though, sincerely.

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

say buhbye to their budies the Hezbollah as well in that case. I'm really surprised that the US hasn't brought this relationship up more often, like after the Francophone summit where Chiraq shook hands with a man who was directly responsible for bombing US Marine baracks.

you just have to admire them (no, not the French)

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Salim
you just have to admire them (no, not the French)

Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

That's precisely what the frog-eaters want; they want recognition. They want acclaim. The worst thing to a Frenchman is to be ignored.

They believe, incredibly, that as long as the eyes of the world are on France, they are illuminating and leading the world. They believe it to be their destiny.

That's a real thigh slapper!

Originally posted by Ralph63
The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their changes, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I can't cite where or when, but I read an article that there is a growing affinity for beastiality, among Swedish men; that this is causing problems on the homefront; divorces, domestic quarrels, etc. Also, that the Swedish government sets its hope on more effective programs designed to draw their men back to what has been considered a normal domestic relationship.

As far as our country being able to do more with less, keep your eyes on the next few weeks news programming. You're going to see something you can't even comprehend. You Putz!