The F16 is a crap plane . . .

Tank Fixer wrote :

Actually it's rather admirable how they have remained firm to the
convictions Sadam paid them to have.

"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."

--
"The French Were Right" (The National Journal)
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...03/1107nj1.htm

In article ,
on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:24:12 GMT,
Grantland attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote:



I have no doubt whatsoever that they'd fight. They'd just fight based on
*their* conviction, not ours. Goddamn them for having conviction and not
just following like lemmings. I mean, how dare they?!?!? Must make 'em
all cowards, right?
Sigh.

Get back to us when they get some convictions then.
So far they have shown they are only interested in thier kickbacks.

Hey ****TARD: They have millions of domestic Muslims and closely
border half the entirety of Islam. They are NOT INTERESTED in the
"Clash of Civilizations"/ Global Jihad that the little traitor Jewboy
NeoCONS are thrusting along with little addled DubDub the Moron.
Stirring up a hornets nest for what? - half arsed LIES! You ****ing
cretinous ****-eating ****WIPE! *That* is their conviction.

So they are just cowards then.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:31:47 +0200,
Skysurfer attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote :

Actually it's rather admirable how they have remained firm to the
convictions Sadam paid them to have.

"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."

I was refering more of the bribes Sadam paid to influential members of the
French government and press.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 22 Jun 2004 10:49:12 GMT,
Drewe Manton attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

Actually it's rather admirable how they have remained firm to the
convictions Sadam paid them to have.

I figured after he was captured they would find a client able to keep
making payments.


Ahh right. So you're sore that France tried to take care of business
*before* invading the country, and that we only tried to take care of
business *after* invading the country. . . all makes sense now.
Oh. . never mind. Pointless exercises like this thread has become become
to wearying too quickly (That's your cue to say I'm running away from an
argument I can't win or something myopically similar)

I find their arguments to be thin when it turns out their journalists and
government officials were being bribed.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tank Fixer
confessed the following:

I find their arguments to be thin when it turns out their journalists and
government officials were being bribed.

Respectfully...do you agree that public opinion in France and Germany
was significantly opposed to a US lead invasion or Iraq? Even public
opinion in the UK was lukewarm at best (roughly 50-50).

Do you suggest that President Chirac was bribed?
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...3158-1229r.htm

Previous articles (published by various sources) around Jan 28 2004
when this story broke listed 46 agencies, companies, or people. The
Washington Times says 270...but does not suggest Chirac himself.

The WT article even mentions that somebody with ties to the Pope is on
the list (which only covers vouchers from 1999). I'm fairly certain
that the Pope opposed gwb's war in Iraq.

Why is it so hard to contemplate that citizens and leaders of other
nations do not march lock-step with gwb & company? These same friends,
being France and Germany have consistantly stated that Saddam Hussein
was an evil piece of ****.

Contemporaneous US corporate scandals (e.g. Enron, Vivendi, Worldcom)
and the current ****-storm over Ahmed Chalabi plus the high level
DoJ, DoD, SecDef memos WRT treatment of prisoners doesn't paint our
business practices nor current government as shining examples to be
emmulated.

Mr Bush didn't "need" French or German support to take out SH, but he
certainly needs their support now to fix the mess in Iraq. You might
not think so, but gwb's speeches at Normandy and at the G-8 summit
would indicate otherwise.

Robey

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tank Fixer
confessed the following:

I find their arguments to be thin when it turns out their journalists and
government officials were being bribed.

Respectfully...do you agree that public opinion in France and Germany
was significantly opposed to a US lead invasion or Iraq? Even public
opinion in the UK was lukewarm at best (roughly 50-50).

European opinion is reflective of the European media... which is about as
diverse as Al-Jazeera vs. Al-Arabya. At least here in the US we have more
than one opinion on the air, so people can accurately make up their minds.

Combine that with long-standing anti-Americanism and you have a rather
obsinant population that will do anything to keep America from projecting
power anywhere, regardless of the facts or reasoning. Hell, if a cure for
cancer were discovered by an American company tomorrow, 78% of Europe would
be in favor of banning it the next day, and another 10% would call for a war
crimes trial.


Do you suggest that President Chirac was bribed?
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...3158-1229r.htm


Yes.

Previous articles (published by various sources) around Jan 28 2004
when this story broke listed 46 agencies, companies, or people. The
Washington Times says 270...but does not suggest Chirac himself.


Give them time. He was, in fact, the man who personally sold a nuclear
reactor to Saddam. (which Israel had to destroy...the Israelies should send
their fuel bill for that operation to France)

The WT article even mentions that somebody with ties to the Pope is on
the list (which only covers vouchers from 1999). I'm fairly certain
that the Pope opposed gwb's war in Iraq.

Perhaps the Vatican was involved as well. You're not suggesting that priests
are incorruptable, are you?


Why is it so hard to contemplate that citizens and leaders of other
nations do not march lock-step with gwb & company? These same friends,
being France and Germany have consistantly stated that Saddam Hussein
was an evil piece of ****.

Hahahaaaa.... yeah, they 'state' all kinds of things... but at some point
you have to put your money where your mouth is, and it's then that it
becomes very clear exactly where people stand.


Contemporaneous US corporate scandals (e.g. Enron, Vivendi, Worldcom)

Vivendi is a French corporation.

and the current ****-storm over Ahmed Chalabi plus the high level
DoJ, DoD, SecDef memos WRT treatment of prisoners doesn't paint our
business practices nor current government as shining examples to be
emmulated.

LOL... the manufactured outrage over these things is appaling. I don't care
if prisoners are being 'abused'. It ain't torture, no matter how many UN
types and other liberals speak with red-faced indignation about the subject.

And the Chalibi thing is disturbing, if totally true, but I have yet to see
much in the way of fact.


Mr Bush didn't "need" French or German support to take out SH, but he
certainly needs their support now to fix the mess in Iraq. You might
not think so, but gwb's speeches at Normandy and at the G-8 summit
would indicate otherwise.

Tell me what we need them for. Please. Because they've already stated that
they won't send troops under any circumstances, and their respective
economies are completely stagnant, so I wouldnt count on much in the way of
money, either. So no troops and no cash. What do we need them for?

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
Paladino Jr." confessed the following:

European opinion is reflective of the European media... which is about as
diverse as Al-Jazeera vs. Al-Arabya. At least here in the US we have more
than one opinion on the air, so people can accurately make up their minds.

WTFO? Based upon what evidence? So during the Clinton years when our
country was widely respected by europeans proves your point...how?
Face it, europeans hate gwb...and now more and more they hate american
citizens. That was not the case even during Reagan's 8 years or old
George's 4 years.

The roughly 50-50 split in the UK is proof of "pro or anti" US press?

Combine that with long-standing anti-Americanism and you have a rather
obsinant population that will do anything to keep America from projecting
power anywhere, regardless of the facts or reasoning.

Now you are simply being silly, "long standing" meaning since just
before our invasion of Iraq?

NATO forces went to the sandbox for GW I... Bosnia/Kosovo...and
Afghanistan. **** they're still fighting along side us in Afghanistan.

Do you suggest that President Chirac was bribed?
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...3158-1229r.htm


Yes.

Ahhh, well you failed the reading test then.

Why is it so hard to contemplate that citizens and leaders of other
nations do not march lock-step with gwb & company? These same friends,
being France and Germany have consistantly stated that Saddam Hussein
was an evil piece of ****.

Hahahaaaa.... yeah, they 'state' all kinds of things... but at some point
you have to put your money where your mouth is, and it's then that it
becomes very clear exactly where people stand.

You have a very short attention span.

True or False: France participated militarily in Desert Storm
alongside the US?

Extra credit:The 10 x KC-135s of ERV 93, 10 x F1CRs of ER 33, 14 x
Mirage 2000s of EC 5, and 28 x Jaguars of EC 11 were from which
european nation?

True or False: France participated militarily in Bosnia/Kosovo
alongside the US?

Extra credit:The 2400 French troops of the French mechanized infantry
battalion still serving in the SFOR are from what european nation?

True or False: France participated militarily in Afghanistan
alongside the US?

Extra credit: Which nation do the 550 French combat troops serving in
Operation Enduring Freedom hail from?

Contemporaneous US corporate scandals (e.g. Enron, Vivendi, Worldcom)

Vivendi is a French corporation.

Fair enough, you got me there...and the 27 June 2003 arbitration case
over Messier's termination severance was held in New York...some say
NY is located in the US. However, Ken Lay (of Enron fame and impending
federal indictment) was one of gwb's major contributors.

LOL... the manufactured outrage over these things is appaling. I don't care
if prisoners are being 'abused'. It ain't torture, no matter how many UN
types and other liberals speak with red-faced indignation about the subject.

I'd suggest you should be mildly interested.

We are engaged in a war of images and and ideas surely as any armed
combat. The US must convince the collective consciousness of the
world, particularly the Arab world. The pictures of humiliation and
the memos saying, "OK Prez you don't have to abide by the Geneva
Conventions if you don't want to," do nothing to help us convince
arabs gwb isn't simply settling an old score or attacking the muslim
religion.

Tell me what we need them for. Please. Because they've already stated that
they won't send troops under any circumstances, and their respective
economies are completely stagnant, so I wouldnt count on much in the way of
money, either. So no troops and no cash. What do we need them for?

I agree that France will not send troops to fight, but France will be
sending police/gendarmerie to establish a police academy in a
soverieign Iraq (according to Dominique de Villepin in a Feb 2004
interview). I suspect your snapshot analysis of the french economy is
not an accurate predictor of future assistance.

Robey

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:24:12 GMT,
Grantland attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote:



I have no doubt whatsoever that they'd fight. They'd just fight based on
*their* conviction, not ours. Goddamn them for having conviction and not
just following like lemmings. I mean, how dare they?!?!? Must make 'em
all cowards, right?
Sigh.

Get back to us when they get some convictions then.
So far they have shown they are only interested in thier kickbacks.

Hey ****TARD: They have millions of domestic Muslims and closely
border half the entirety of Islam. They are NOT INTERESTED in the
"Clash of Civilizations"/ Global Jihad that the little traitor Jewboy
NeoCONS are thrusting along with little addled DubDub the Moron.
Stirring up a hornets nest for what? - half arsed LIES! You ****ing
cretinous ****-eating ****WIPE! *That* is their conviction.

So they are just cowards then.

"and like spoiled cold-hearted kiddies, the hangers-on of the failed
Bush Mid-East policy continually try to make themselves feel good,
regardless of how much horrible death and injury it's unnecessarily
caused to many thousands of innocent civilians, or the hundreds of
unneeded deaths and injuries of American soldiers (and tens of
thousands of Iraqi soldiers).

There seems to be nothing but an intense ego-driven, sociopathic
obsession with proving one's self as "right" to the exclusion of
everything else. The war in their heads is as fierce and insane as
Bush's Iraqi warfare. They must "win" not so much to prove the war
was right, and all the carnage and destruction it caused was
justified, but that they are personally right in supporting it. It's a
self-centered "make myself feel good" mode they're in, which to me, is
a great evil in itself."
....

Dr. Blunt ---------------Serving the Usenet's mentally ill since 1998.

Grantland, mentally ill since 1998


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
Paladino Jr." confessed the following:

European opinion is reflective of the European media... which is about as
diverse as Al-Jazeera vs. Al-Arabya. At least here in the US we have more
than one opinion on the air, so people can accurately make up their
minds.

WTFO? Based upon what evidence? So during the Clinton years when our
country was widely respected by europeans proves your point...how?
Face it, europeans hate gwb...and now more and more they hate american
citizens. That was not the case even during Reagan's 8 years or old
George's 4 years.


Our counrty was never respected by Europe. At least not for the last 30
years or so. If you think that all of this just started with GWB then you
are naive and silly.

The roughly 50-50 split in the UK is proof of "pro or anti" US press?

Combine that with long-standing anti-Americanism and you have a rather
obsinant population that will do anything to keep America from projecting
power anywhere, regardless of the facts or reasoning.

Now you are simply being silly, "long standing" meaning since just
before our invasion of Iraq?

Again, if you think that this all began with and because of Iraq, you're
crazy.


NATO forces went to the sandbox for GW I... Bosnia/Kosovo...and
Afghanistan. **** they're still fighting along side us in Afghanistan.

Yeah, and their populations & media have been against even that from day
one, and are fighting tooth and nail to get them out.


Do you suggest that President Chirac was bribed?
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...3158-1229r.htm


Yes.

Ahhh, well you failed the reading test then.

I didn't read the article, but it wouldn't change my opinion.


Why is it so hard to contemplate that citizens and leaders of other
nations do not march lock-step with gwb & company? These same friends,
being France and Germany have consistantly stated that Saddam Hussein
was an evil piece of ****.

Hahahaaaa.... yeah, they 'state' all kinds of things... but at some point
you have to put your money where your mouth is, and it's then that it
becomes very clear exactly where people stand.

You have a very short attention span.

True or False: France participated militarily in Desert Storm
alongside the US?

Because it was endorsed by their masters at the mighty UN.

Contemporaneous US corporate scandals (e.g. Enron, Vivendi, Worldcom)

Vivendi is a French corporation.

Fair enough, you got me there...and the 27 June 2003 arbitration case
over Messier's termination severance was held in New York...some say
NY is located in the US.

I live in NY and it is indeed in the US. And so what? It is a French
corporation, he sits in a Frech jail right now.

However, Ken Lay (of Enron fame and impending
federal indictment) was one of gwb's major contributors.

And Ken Lay also spent several nights in the Lincoln Bedroom under CLINTON.
What does that prove? Nothing. In fact, the fact that the justice department
has gone after him so hard proves that there is no improper relationship
between he and the administration.


LOL... the manufactured outrage over these things is appaling. I don't
care
if prisoners are being 'abused'. It ain't torture, no matter how many UN
types and other liberals speak with red-faced indignation about the
subject.

I'd suggest you should be mildly interested.

We are engaged in a war of images and and ideas surely as any armed
combat. The US must convince the collective consciousness of the
world, particularly the Arab world. The pictures of humiliation and
the memos saying, "OK Prez you don't have to abide by the Geneva
Conventions if you don't want to," do nothing to help us convince
arabs gwb isn't simply settling an old score or attacking the muslim
religion.

Screw 'em.


Tell me what we need them for. Please. Because they've already stated
that
they won't send troops under any circumstances, and their respective
economies are completely stagnant, so I wouldnt count on much in the way
of
money, either. So no troops and no cash. What do we need them for?

I agree that France will not send troops to fight, but France will be
sending police/gendarmerie to establish a police academy in a
soverieign Iraq (according to Dominique de Villepin in a Feb 2004
interview). I suspect your snapshot analysis of the french economy is
not an accurate predictor of future assistance.

It's hardly a 'snapshot' when it's been stagnant for the last 20 years.