please stop bashing France

[Grantland]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

>Jordan wrote:
>
>> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
>> USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
>> when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
>
>Yep! It'll be a great day for you when China is Number One, huh?
>
>
>SMH

Yer damn tootin, Jew-slave. ****ing fat, stupid, ignorant yankee
pigs. You dropped the ball, sad-sack. You let down the world.

Grantland

[IO]

I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and racist
thing. There's no much reasons to hate USA but tv shows like Bill O'reilly's
one and newspapers like New York Post are part of these reasons. Please
don't follow them in their unjustified stupid hate campaign.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"IO" > wrote:

> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
> racist thing.

It's not a race issue.

We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[IO]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> "IO" > wrote:
>
>> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
>> racist thing.
>
> It's not a race issue.
>
> We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.

If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French cowardy...
Remember Die Bien Phu or french resistance against nazis... Your (american)
behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans.... And also Russia,
Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on Iraq resolution
remeber this...

[redc1c4]

IO wrote:
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "IO" > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
> >> racist thing.
> >
> > It's not a race issue.
> >
> > We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.
>
> If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
> french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French cowardy...
> Remember Die Bien Phu or french resistance against nazis... Your (american)
> behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans.... And also Russia,
> Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on Iraq resolution
> remeber this...

he's got a point.......let's make fun of the Italians for awhile!

redc1c4,
(G*d knows there's enough material to choose from %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[BUFDRVR]

> Your (american)
>behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans....

That's interesting, because most Americans found the Europeans (minus the
British of course) behavior before, during and even now after IRAQI FREEDOM
offensive.

>And also Russia,
>Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on Iraq resolution
>remeber this...

We remember, except France's behavior in regards to Iraq was simply the "straw
that broke the camals back". France has been attempting to subvert US influance
in Europe for years, Iraq was simply the latest (and most visable) effort.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mike Marron]

> redc1c4 > wrote:
>>IO wrote:

>>If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
>>french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French cowardy...
>>Remember Die Bien Phu or french resistance against nazis... Your (american)
>>behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans.... And also Russia,
>>Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on Iraq resolution
>>remeber this...

>he's got a point.......

Agreed.

>let's make fun of the Italians for awhile!

No fair (like the French, different language). Let's make fun of the
Canadians for awhile.

>redc1c4,
>(G*d knows there's enough material to choose from %-)

Especially on RAM. Interesting how the most insignificant, yet most
vocal contingent seems to be Canucks.

[Chad Irby]

"IO" > wrote:

> If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
> french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French cowardy...

Well, I haven't been, but with so many French papers and media outlets
putting out "America is evil!" content, it has to go back somewhere.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jordan]

Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.

Don't you think enough people hate americans already? Why do you keep
acting to reinforce their perceptions?

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>Especially on RAM. Interesting how the most insignificant, yet most
>vocal contingent seems to be Canucks.
>
>
Well Mike, that's cause all Canucks have huge "aircraft"
--

-Gord.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Jordan > wrote:

> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> USA.

Yeah, that making fun of other countries is so bad for their self-image.
They could get a complex or something.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Garrison Hilliard]

The French are even hated by themselves!

http://tinyurl.com/qm7a

[Jordan]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:24:59 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Jordan > wrote:
>
>> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
>> USA.
>
>Yeah, that making fun of other countries is so bad for their self-image.
>They could get a complex or something.

You think it's a joke, how easily you forget the events of 9/11.

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> "IO" > wrote:
>
> > If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
> > french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French
cowardy...
>
> Well, I haven't been, but with so many French papers and media outlets
> putting out "America is evil!" content, it has to go back somewhere.

Example please?? Apart from right and left wing extremist tablids, you'll
find NO front page as outragous as some US papers were during the
french-bashing period.
Didn't you understand that the "Amercia is evil" myth is just to justify
more French bashing????
If you want to do some research to back your claims, the major french papers
are LeMonde, LeFigaro, Liberation, LeParisien, France-Soir, LeCanrad
Enchainé. Major TV channels are TF1, Fr2, FR3, Canal+ and M6.
Please don't back your claims with stuff you saw on Fox or read in the
NYPost.
If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
help.

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[lekomin inc]

Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british. I'm
Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny bunch
of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
take care
lekomin inc

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...

> >
>
> You act as if this recent anti-French sentiment was the result of
> recent activity by Chirac. I content that it is only the open
> voicing of this opinion -- but that it has been privately held
> for a very long time.
>
> France, if you recall, kicked NATO out of the country.
> France, if you recall, aggressively worked against US interests
> in Vietnam.
> France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
> tourists.
> France, if you recall, has for the last 20 years, aggressively
> worked against US foreign policy at every opportunity.
> France, if you recall, has worked very hard over the last three
> decades to weaken the US dollar.
> France, if you recall, thumbed its nose at the repayment of the
> debts it incurred to the US in the aftermath of WWII.
>


Welcome to the real world!!
In the next lesson you'll learn that the methods you just described are
exactly the ones used:
a. by EVERY country in the world
b. especially by the US. How do you think the US made it to it's current
position after WWII??

Pierre-Henri
P.S. Do you have any idea how egocentric your post was? Do you really think
the French treat only americans that way, or that only the French treat
amercicans that way? Pleeeeeeeeeease.

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
> You act as if this recent anti-French sentiment was the result of
> recent activity by Chirac. I content that it is only the open
> voicing of this opinion -- but that it has been privately held
> for a very long time.
>
> France, if you recall, kicked NATO out of the country.
> France, if you recall, aggressively worked against US interests
> in Vietnam.
> France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
> tourists.
> France, if you recall, has for the last 20 years, aggressively
> worked against US foreign policy at every opportunity.
> France, if you recall, has worked very hard over the last three
> decades to weaken the US dollar.
> France, if you recall, thumbed its nose at the repayment of the
> debts it incurred to the US in the aftermath of WWII.
>

It's funny your post made me think of Robert Kagan's last book "Of Paradise
and Power". You're almost acting they way he says europeans (according to
him we're trapped in a post-modern world, unable to wage war) act in front
of the USA, complaining that they're using unethical means to install and
enforce their hegemony. Needs one to know one....

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[tscottme]

IO > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "IO" > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
> >> racist thing.
> >
> > It's not a race issue.
> >
> > We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.
>
> If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all
the
> french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French
cowardy...
> Remember Die Bien Phu or french resistance against nazis... Your
(american)
> behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans.... And also
Russia,
> Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on Iraq
resolution
> remeber this...
>

So your original point should have been for Americans to withhold their
criticism of the French while the Europeans criticize the US? Thanks to
your message we now have another chance to start the international
criticism of those that put teeth into the UN and those that hide behind
the UN to avoid doing much, even when it is required. With as little as
the Europeans contribute to international security, it doesn't matter
much if they like the US or not. Often their contribution is only a
token gesture which gives them more pride than the US real assistance.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Jordan > wrote in message
...
> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
> when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
>
> Don't you think enough people hate americans already? Why do you keep
> acting to reinforce their perceptions?

Funny they hate America but fall all over themselves to ingratiate
themselves with the Russians, the Arabs, and all the other full-time
ogres. I think that says more about the rationality of the Europeans
than the faults of the US. Besides, being powerful means you don't need
everyone to like you, fear is enough. You don't see much European anger
about slavery in the Arab world, or harsh treatment of Christians in
China or the Middle East. But one cop killer gets sentenced to death
and the Euro trash has a seizure.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Jordan > wrote in message
...
>
> You think it's a joke, how easily you forget the events of 9/11.

9/11 is why we spend time going after the groups we see as dangerous and
less time sitting in cafes sipping bad coffee and worrying if they like
us or not. If you want a say in world events, become a US citizen or
get your country to take the responsibility to become powerful.

The Europeans have lived in a protected little green house so long they
seem to think that if all the nice people just agree to be nice there
will be nothing but joy for all of us. Someone has to shoot the wolf at
the door, even if the loud noise disturbs your garden party.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

lekomin inc > wrote in message
...
> Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being
british. I'm
> Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for
and
> against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004
enlargement
> EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny
bunch
> of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..)
but
> they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> take care
> lekomin inc
>

Please excuse the inclusion of Poland in "Europe" as it's commonly used
in these heated discussions. I and others know that Poland and other
countries in Europe are level-headed. It seems that the countries that
have more recent experience with the harsh realities have an adult
appreciation for the dangers in the world. As one American my working
definition of "Europe" when it's being criticized in this discussion is
France and Germany and such. Most of us would write "the weasel nations
in Europe that have little to contribute but hot air, and spend half
their time on vacation or on strike" except it's too much to type.

Poland should be proud of their special forces and their assuming the
responsibility in these issues.

I'm grateful to Poland, UK, Norway, Australia, and the majority of NATO
countries that did contribute to the effort. I'm not the only American
that is grateful for those that will act like allies.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Pierre-Henri Baras > wrote in message
...

>
>
> Welcome to the real world!!
> In the next lesson you'll learn that the methods you just described
are
> exactly the ones used:
> a. by EVERY country in the world
> b. especially by the US. How do you think the US made it to it's
current
> position after WWII??
>
> Pierre-Henri
> P.S. Do you have any idea how egocentric your post was? Do you really
think
> the French treat only americans that way, or that only the French
treat
> amercicans that way? Pleeeeeeeeeease.

Well to listen to the French and the UN worshippers, only the US is
motivated by national interest. Everyone else is pursuing the
collective good of all humanity when they violate sanctions, veto
resolutions, and march in the street.

Ah don't take the French hostility and back stabbing personally, they
are worthless allies to everyone, except the Germans.

Americans are constantly accused of arrogance for pushing our point of
view, when the real charge should be that we won't accept the French or
European view as our view. If that's not European arrogance, it's close
enough.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Garrison Hilliard > wrote in message
...
>
> The French are even hated by themselves!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qm7a

Then they aren't as stupid as I had imagined. I'm sure their
self-hatred will soon be blamed on the US and McDonald's.

300 dead US soldiers to capture Iraq, 15,000 French deaths due to hot
weather, G-d help us if a soccer riot breaks out in France, there could
be millions of dead.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Gunnar]

"tscottme" > skrev i melding
...
> Jordan > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> > USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
> > when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
> >
> > Don't you think enough people hate americans already? Why do you keep
> > acting to reinforce their perceptions?
>
> Funny they hate America but fall all over themselves to ingratiate
> themselves with the Russians, the Arabs, and all the other full-time
> ogres. I think that says more about the rationality of the Europeans
> than the faults of the US. Besides, being powerful means you don't need
> everyone to like you, fear is enough. You don't see much European anger
> about slavery in the Arab world, or harsh treatment of Christians in
> China or the Middle East. But one cop killer gets sentenced to death
> and the Euro trash has a seizure.
>

Could it be that we'l like for you to be of a higher standard than the
rest... ?

The only moral justification for us ( that is the vestern world ) being
"better" than the rest is that we are in fact BETTER than the rest of the
world !
And better means higher standards in treatment, letter of the law etc.

[John S. Shinal]

"lekomin inc" wrote:

>Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british. I'm
>Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
>Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
>against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
>EU was FOR the US.

There has been mention a number of times in various US press
about the Poles, the Dutch, Slovakia, and others who have quietly and
quickly given support. A lot of the mainstream press coverage in the
US has a narrow focus, but pan-European help has been noted by some.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[IO]

You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full of
Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the help
of the germans... :) :)

[IO]

> Please excuse the inclusion of Poland in "Europe" as it's commonly
> used in these heated discussions.

I agree Poland is not Europe... Poland is Third World... Iran and poland
have similar pils remember it...

I and others know that Poland and
> other countries in Europe are level-headed. It seems that the
> countries that have more recent experience with the harsh realities
> have an adult appreciation for the dangers in the world. As one
> American my working definition of "Europe" when it's being criticized
> in this discussion is France and Germany and such. Most of us would
> write "the weasel nations in Europe that have little to contribute
> but hot air, and spend half their time on vacation or on strike"
> except it's too much to type.
>
> Poland should be proud of their special forces and their assuming the
> responsibility in these issues.

Poland proud of :) :). Polish armed forces are below the russia's one :)


> I'm grateful to Poland, UK, Norway, Australia, and the majority of
> NATO countries that did contribute to the effort. I'm not the only
> American that is grateful for those that will act like allies.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Jordan > wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:24:59 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Jordan > wrote:
> >
> >> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> >> USA.
> >
> >Yeah, that making fun of other countries is so bad for their self-image.
> >They could get a complex or something.
>
> You think it's a joke, how easily you forget the events of 9/11.

So you're comparing our making fun of other nations with the killing of
thousands of our people?

You're a sad sick little person.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> Example please?? Apart from right and left wing extremist tablids, you'll
> find NO front page as outragous as some US papers were during the
> french-bashing period.

Do you even *read* your own papers?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Stephen Harding]

Jordan wrote:

> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
> when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.

Yep! It'll be a great day for you when China is Number One, huh?


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Gunnar wrote:

> Could it be that we'l like for you to be of a higher standard than the
> rest... ?

And how does a de facto policy of returning Saddam Hussein to power in
Iraq make for high standards?

> The only moral justification for us ( that is the vestern world ) being
> "better" than the rest is that we are in fact BETTER than the rest of the
> world !
> And better means higher standards in treatment, letter of the law etc.

Again, how does aiding the return of Saddam Hussein to Iraqi leadership
promote these high ideals?

Europe [and the UN] isn't doing this???

Well, you figure things out.

-- What "former" Iraqi despot still lives in Iraq (as far as we know)?

-- What former leadership has millions [perhaps billions] of dollars still
at their disposal in Iraq?

-- What former leadership party has large supplies of weaponry (possibly
even WMD) still available for use in Iraq?

-- What former leadership party has ruthless people, skilled in the use of
weaponry (and "attitude adjustment" techniques) still at their disposal
in Iraq?

-- What do you think members of a former Iraqi power structure will do when
US forces depart Iraq if all these resources are still available to them?

High standards of how the world should act won't help you come to a very
viable conclusion given these facts, and you might not like the answer
these facts point to, given your high minded policy demands.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

lekomin inc wrote:

> Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british. I'm
> Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
> against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
> EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny bunch
> of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
> they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> take care

Hey, you guys are "New Europe".

Chirac says you don't count!


SMH

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
> > Example please?? Apart from right and left wing extremist tablids,
you'll
> > find NO front page as outragous as some US papers were during the
> > french-bashing period.
>
> Do you even *read* your own papers?


Don't worry for me, I read them!
But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front page
articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the ennemy",
or some other dumb thing. No article tried being smart by listing american
military blunders, or by listing French products on the US market and
calling for their boycott. No TV footage showed bottles of Coke being
emptied in the gutter, and those showing a McDonalds being torn down refer
to the legal decision that condemned the man who did it (José Bové if you
want to look it up).
No TV hosts appeared on screen with a "I F*CK USA" on them. Apart from a
few satirical shows, no one on TV spent hours telling old/inaccurate/easy
French jokes.
No articles in our equivalents of the Washington Post or others were
insulting, spreading hatred.

Now the question is do you read *yours* because you sure need a lot of guts
to say that there was "yankee bashing" in France.
Pierre-Henri

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"lekomin inc" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british.
I'm
> Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> Germany" as synonyms.

don't worry mate, we feel the same way about you!

>The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny bunch
> of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
> they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.

and yet we (the 3 countries you mentionned) have 36% of the seats at the
European Parliament....you know the institution that's going to determine
the future of Poland in the EU...
You're so arrogant you could be French ;-)
Take care
Pierre-Henri

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Garrison Hilliard"

>The French are even hated by themselves!
>
>http://tinyurl.com/qm7a

Interesting article--and many of the other linked articles are quite
interesting, as well.

Here is an article by Clark S. Judge from a recent Policy Review that may be of
interest. It takes a look at US influence in the world and the reasons for
opposition to it from a very interesting angle. Title "Hegemony of the Heart":

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/judge.html

A few quotes to give you a sense of it:

"The great battle of the twentieth century was between freedom and
totalitarianism — an entirely political conflict. The great battle of the
twenty-first century may well be between the forces of creative destruction and
those of destructive preservation — much more a social and cultural conflict.
Americans will wonder, what have we done to be drawn into conflicts like the
present one? The answer is simple: Our example is the hope of those who are
striving and rising. We cannot escape this conflict by changing what we do in
foreign policy or other arenas of action, because in this arena our power
derives not from what we do but from who we are — and what we represent to
these new classes and those who oppose them.
****
"Yet like it or not, the world will not let us go. It might be said that in
country after country, those who are threatened on the top are seeking to
combine with those who are frustrated on the bottom against those who are
rising in the middle. We ask why they hate us, and the answer is that
“they� hate and fear so many people in their own countries for whom America
has become an emblem — and so far as they feel the same tug that these new
men and women feel, they hate themselves."


Chris Mark

[Chad Irby]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>
> > Do you even *read* your own papers?
>
> Don't worry for me, I read them!
> But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front page
> articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the ennemy",
> or some other dumb thing.

Find some similar "front page" articles in the mainstream American
press, first.

Et bloody cetera. Lots of accusations, no real evidence.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> >
> > > Do you even *read* your own papers?
> >
> > Don't worry for me, I read them!
> > But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front
page
> > articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the
ennemy",
> > or some other dumb thing.
>
> Find some similar "front page" articles in the mainstream American
> press, first.
>
> Et bloody cetera. Lots of accusations, no real evidence.

yeah, like the WMD in Iraq.......
(sorry, that one was easy!)

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> >
> > > Do you even *read* your own papers?
> >
> > Don't worry for me, I read them!
> > But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front
page
> > articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the
ennemy",
> > or some other dumb thing.
>
> Find some similar "front page" articles in the mainstream American
> press, first.

I'll do that when you find French front pages reading "America is evil!".
OK? If I can research US papers, you can research french ones, right? They
all have English versions.


>
> Et bloody cetera. Lots of accusations, no real evidence.

Evidence of what??? French bashing??? Are you kidding me???

Monday february 10th 2003 National Post article. Want me to give extracts of
it?
Sunday feb 9th. Thomas Friedman article in the NY Times.
the previous week in the NY Times Geoffrey Nunberg wrote a "French bashing
dictionnary".
George Will's articles in the Washington Post.
Feb 6th Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox asking people to email the French Embasy
with insults.
Feb 10th the Wall Street Journal called Jacques Chirac a "bald Joan of Arc
travestite" and a pygme.

Come on!

Pierre-Henri

[guy wastiaux]

"France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
tourists."

LOL poor kid ! Did people refuse to look at you or what ? If you are as
handsome as you can think correctly, then I wouldn't be surprised ppl
wouldn't want to take a look at you !

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:

> > Et bloody cetera. Lots of accusations, no real evidence.
>
> yeah, like the WMD in Iraq.......
> (sorry, that one was easy!)

....and wrong.

Read the Kay report. Not the "press summaries," the actual report.

They had an ongoing program, materials, labs, and a lot of stockpiles we
haven't had a chance to even look at yet.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Franck]

>15,000 French deaths due to hot weather

pathetic !! don't forget to speak about the 12000 people shot in the US
street in 2002

further more you don't have any lecon concerning the medical assistance !!!

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[guy wastiaux]

I'll admit something to please you : many ppl in France disagree with
the US position on Iraq, some quite violently. However, a lot of this
flaming comes from the lower, less-educated France (in my opinion). If
you study the politicians' opinions a bit closer, many disagree w/ war,
but are eager and willing to find a solution to your and our problem.

I respect the US's will to wage war, and to try to defend itself,
because I feel you do this to preserve democracy and your way of life
(not indirectly though). I'm just saying that ppl have the right to
disagree with you, and they shouldn't be badly spoken of, even though it
might not please you. The current subject being war (which kills ppl, I
allow myself to remind you), I think it's normal for governments who
disagree w/ Bush to express their opinion quite loud. War isn't a small
thing and I don't think it has ever occured to some Americans that those
wars, however justified they are, could very well not provide the right
response !
Now if you mention the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so many countries have
suffered from terrorism in the past 30 years. I recall none of the
nation-victims waged 2 wars against countries, for which proofs are
hardly existing... (perhaps the Israelis have killed a few bad guys, but
not as much as the US in those wars).
Ok, 9/11 is a revolution in terrorism, but even so. I have personnaly
been on the WTC towers in late July 2001, and I was among the many ppl
who couldn't believe what was being shown on TV. I loved NYC and so many
ppl were so nice... I don't hate Americans, far from it. I'm quite happy
when American tourist come and have a look at our capital, asking what
building is that, etc...

But I think war against Iraq wasn't all that justified.


Chad Irby wrote:
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>>
>>
>>>Do you even *read* your own papers?
>>
>>Don't worry for me, I read them!
>>But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front page
>>articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the ennemy",
>>or some other dumb thing.
>
>
> Find some similar "front page" articles in the mainstream American
> press, first.
>
> Et bloody cetera. Lots of accusations, no real evidence.
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Franck]

>Read the Kay report. Not the "press summaries," the actual report.
>
>They had an ongoing program, materials, labs, and a lot of stockpiles we
>haven't had a chance to even look at yet.

open you eyes. when i read some us post i understand why they vote for
'Arnold', next time i'm sure they will vote for mickey mouse

I have a question for you :

how many US soldiers could write exactly the same mail for the us newspaper
???

sure all the fact wrote on the mail are exact

Manipulation, propaganda..do you know these words ?

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Tex Houston]

"guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
...
> I'll admit something to please you : many ppl in France disagree with
> the US position on Iraq, some quite violently.

I'm just saying that ppl have the right to
> disagree with you, and they shouldn't be badly spoken of, even though it
> might not please you. The current subject being war (which kills ppl, I
> allow myself to remind you),

What is this mysterious organization 'ppl' which you seem fixated on?

Tex

[ArVa]

"tscottme" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> 9/11 is why we spend time going after the groups we see as dangerous and
> less time sitting in cafes sipping bad coffee and worrying if they like
> us or not. If you want a say in world events, become a US citizen or
> get your country to take the responsibility to become powerful.

When one's acts have repercussions on the whole world, everyone has a say.
Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country was
built upon?

>
> The Europeans have lived in a protected little green house so long they
> seem to think that if all the nice people just agree to be nice there
> will be nothing but joy for all of us. Someone has to shoot the wolf at
> the door, even if the loud noise disturbs your garden party.

Does the 20th century in Europe really match your idea of a garden party?
Yes, we have experienced wars and yes, we have experienced and still
experience terrorism; just like you...

Nobody denies that the wolf has to be taken out but the problem is that the
beast is not at the door but hides deep in the forest. One can go after it
swiftly, with dogs and horns, but then the wolf might escape (sounds
familiar?), or one can go stealthy, ambush, and shoot it while it's drinking
at the pond.

ArVa

[Chad Irby]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> Evidence of what??? French bashing??? Are you kidding me???
>
> Monday february 10th 2003 National Post article. Want me to give extracts of
> it?

Yes. National Post? Never heard of it. Oh, wait - that's a *Canadian*
paper... despite rumors to the contrary, Canada is not a part of the
United States.

> Sunday feb 9th. Thomas Friedman article in the NY Times.

Thomas Friedman is an op-ed writer.

A summary:

"ABSTRACT - Thomas L Friedman Op-Ed column on his wish that France
could be voted off UN Security Council and replaced by India, world's
biggest democracy and one that has not grown 'silly' trying to
differentiate itself from America; finds French position on Iraq utterly
incoherent and warns that only way to force Saddam Hussein into
compliance without war is for whole world to line up against his
misbehavior (M)"

Sounds good. Why *is* France a permanent member of the Security
Council? It's not like they're important or anything.

> the previous week in the NY Times Geoffrey Nunberg wrote a "French bashing
> dictionnary".

Actually, not. "A Lexicon of Francophobia, From Emerson to Fox TV." It
sums up a few phrases in use by some editorialists and the like, but
it's hardly a "dictionary," and spends more time on the French-English
disputes of the last 600 years or so.

> George Will's articles in the Washington Post.

Editorials. Once again, not "front page articles."

> Feb 6th Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox asking people to email the French Embasy
> with insults.

Considering the French actions about that time, that's a fairly mild
response.

> Feb 10th the Wall Street Journal called Jacques Chirac a "bald Joan of Arc
> travestite" and a pygme.

Yet another editorial. And not too far off the mark, if you actually
read the piece.

So these editorial comments by folks count a "front page news" to you?

If so, you need to go back and read some of the editorials and editorial
cartoons in Le Monde, including all of the "bloof for oil" bits.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[guy wastiaux]

Tex Houston wrote:
> "guy wastiaux" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'll admit something to please you : many ppl in France disagree with
>>the US position on Iraq, some quite violently.
>
>
> I'm just saying that ppl have the right to
>
>>disagree with you, and they shouldn't be badly spoken of, even though it
>>might not please you. The current subject being war (which kills ppl, I
>>allow myself to remind you),
>
>
> What is this mysterious organization 'ppl' which you seem fixated on?
>
> Tex
>
>
ppl stands for people. I'm lazy, I know :D

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[ArVa]

"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de
...


> France, if you recall, kicked NATO out of the country.
> France, if you recall, aggressively worked against US interests
> in Vietnam.
> France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
> tourists.

.... yet 2 millions come (or used to) each year. Are they all dumb? Or just
democrats maybe, hmmm?
"Excessively rude", LOL.... What kind of twisted urban legend are you
refering to? Do you *also* have friends of yours who have been spat upon
while they were walking down the streets of Paris? Come on...

> France, if you recall, has for the last 20 years, aggressively
> worked against US foreign policy at every opportunity.
> France,

.... Sure, and also backed it in many occasions you strangely don't seem to
remember. How come so many of you Americans have a so biased and selective
memory?

> Chirac is only the burst pimple on the ass of a once great
> nation. The infection is much, much deeper.

So you define the greatness of a nation by the number of visits its leader
pays to Crawdad, TX?
Chirac may have many, many, many flaws but the irony is that he's certainly
not the most hostile to America among the former or yet-to-come French
leaders...

ArVa

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Oh great, a revisionist.
Or if you really need help with the frenchbashing in the US media try
http://www.miquelon.org/journalists.html

PHB

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:54:35 GMT, "IO" > wrote:

>I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and racist
>thing. There's no much reasons to hate USA but tv shows like Bill O'reilly's
>one and newspapers like New York Post are part of these reasons. Please
>don't follow them in their unjustified stupid hate campaign.
>

France is not a "race" so French bashing is not racist. France has
chosen (as is their right) to take positions that most people in the
US feel are stupid and counter-productive. Expressing disgust with the
policies of the French Government is simply an exercise of free
speech.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:38:46 GMT, Jordan > wrote:

>Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
>USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
>when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
>
>Don't you think enough people hate americans already? Why do you keep
>acting to reinforce their perceptions?

Well, you are going to need a tremendous amount of patience, the US
will be the preeminent world power for many years to come. You should
be thankful that the major world power is not Russia, China, or
France.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:05:31 GMT, Jordan > wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:24:59 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Jordan > wrote:
>>
>>> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
>>> USA.
>>
>>Yeah, that making fun of other countries is so bad for their self-image.
>>They could get a complex or something.
>
>You think it's a joke, how easily you forget the events of 9/11.

So France and the French support terrorists? Not terribly surprising.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:37:53 +0200, "lekomin inc" >
wrote:

>Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british. I'm
>Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
>Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
>against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
>EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny bunch
>of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
>they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
>take care
>lekomin inc
>

We certainly are grateful for the support of the Polish people and
their Government. I am afraid that the use of terms such as
"euro-wieni" etc have become associated with the French to the point
where they are used interchangeably. Please forgive this usage, we
certainly do not include the Poles in the reference.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:16:42 GMT, "IO" > wrote:

>You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full of
>Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the help
>of the germans... :) :)
>
You, sir, are a disgusting *******.

Al MInyard

[ArVa]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
m...

Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in the
US? I read a lot the US press avalaible on the Internet and believe me,
there was such a campaign! And for some (fewer and fewer every day to be
honest) it's not even over yet...

According to me, the most infamous piece was Ron Marr's article titled "Why
I hate the French". Just an excerpt :

"[...] The French eat horse. They eat glands. They eat bugs. I know this
because they rarely brush their teeth. Their women whine and complain and
braid their armpit hair. Their men are beret-wearing twig-boys with bad
complexions. All French people consider themselves intellectually superior,
and I suppose they are if the comparison is to an incontinent house cat.
Give them two minutes and they will inevitably rave of their sexual prowess,
which is a little like Christopher Reeve bragging about his speed in the 40
yard dash.[...]"
The rest at : http://www.americandaily.com/item/1287, but you probably
already had a good laugh reading it before.

OK, that kind of bs was not on the front page of the LA times, of the Dallas
Morning News or the Washington Post but it is printed in many local papers
throughout the country and reach million people.
OK, the vast majority of these people of course don't take it for word, but
it spreads hatred and distrust. For instance, how many of your fellow
citizens actually think, beyond any odds and despite the lack of evidence
and the denials, that France actually supported and helped SH's regime
*against* the US?


ArVa

[Franck]

>You should,be thankful that the major world power is not Russia, China, or
France.

Are you sure US is better ? .....


--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[NEMO ME IMPUNE]

When I'm saying those guys read those US guys...

"NEMO ME IMPUNE" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> I understand your opinion. But these guys are so proud of their ass that
> it's quite impossible to see them having just capability to imagine they
got
> a brain....
>
>

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> You don't see much European anger
> about slavery in the Arab world, or harsh treatment of Christians in
> China or the Middle East.

*You* don't see that because you don't look, either that or because CNN
doesn't tell you. Though how about taking a look at how China (a billion
Communists no less) is a "favoured trading partner" of the US? How about
how the US ran to the aid of oppressive Saudi Arabia and totalitarian Kuwait
in 1991 also? People in glass houses and all that...

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> That's interesting, because most Americans found the Europeans (minus the
> British of course) behavior before, during and even now after IRAQI
FREEDOM
> offensive.

Is that before or after all the Americans realised their government had lied
(or been so unbelievably badly informed) on the existance of WMDs?
Regardless of how well the removal of Saddam Hussein has gone, the pretence
for war was to remove a clear and present chemical and/or biological threat.
It's kind of clear there wasn't one, which was France's opinion all along
(and the reason for the veto against the stated reason for war) and now all
those offensive vetoing nations have been proved right. Isn't it time Bush
made an apology to the French people for all the slurs his politicians and
populace have so mistakenly made, live on international TV? :^)

Si

[Tarver Engineering]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You don't see much European anger
> > about slavery in the Arab world, or harsh treatment of Christians in
> > China or the Middle East.
>
> *You* don't see that because you don't look, either that or because CNN
> doesn't tell you. Though how about taking a look at how China (a billion
> Communists no less) is a "favoured trading partner" of the US? How about
> how the US ran to the aid of oppressive Saudi Arabia and totalitarian
Kuwait
> in 1991 also? People in glass houses and all that...

The Saudis intend to begin holding elections within a year.

[Simon Robbins]

"IO" > wrote in message
...
> I agree Poland is not Europe... Poland is Third World... Iran and poland
> have similar pils remember it...

Christ... have you ever been to New England?

Si

[Cub Driver]

>The Europeans have lived in a protected little green house so long they
>seem to think that if all the nice people just agree to be nice there
>will be nothing but joy for all of us. Someone has to shoot the wolf at
>the door, even if the loud noise disturbs your garden party.

The Wall Street Journal noted this morning that the reason UN
peacekeeping forces are more and more drawn from poor nations is that
they alone have the surplus troops for this sort of mission--troops
who moreover are thrifty to maintain and proud of the job. With the
exception of Britain's, European armies have been drawn down to the
point where they are essentially useless. From what I've read earlier,
that would also appear to be true of Canada's.

So not only is the U.S. the "sole superpower," it is very nearly also
the only democracy with an army. Think of NATO's war against
Yugoslavia. All of continental Europe couldn't manage a war against a
small Balkan nation, without the U.S. and Britain to do the heavy
lifting.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country was
>built upon?

Many Americans don't understand the concept of free speech, so I'm not
surprised that the concept should elude a Frenchman.

The U.S. Constitution imposes upon me the duty to give another man the
freedom to speak his mind. It does not, however, impose upon me a
duty to listen.

As for democracy--ayuh! That's what Americans for more than a hundred
years have bled for, bringing democracy to Cuba, France, Iraq, and
other unfortunate places. But loving democracy does not oblige us to
treat M. Chirac with respect. Quite the contrary, in fact. The
American brand of democracy has always had a strong vein of
irreverance built into it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

This guy has a point. We have got to begin saying "except for Britain,
Spain, Poland, and perhaps a few others that have slipped my mind,
*Europe* is / isn't / etc."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Simon Robbins]

"Frank Vaughan" > wrote in message
...
> France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
> tourists.

Oh come on, you can't criticise people for having a hobby. :^) This maybe
something of a generalisation, but call it an un-scientific observation:
North American tourists (I'll include Canadians too, why not) often *appear*
to be of the opinion than anyone and everyone in the countries they visit is
there solely for their benefit, like we're all staff at Disneyland or
something. When I hear a whiney kid point at an old house (say 40 years+)
and go "Gee Ma, is that a castle?" it's hard not to be rude. (Ok, so
that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I did hear it from one pointing at a
church once.)

BTW, don't take this post too seriously, it's just all the manic
nationalistic attitude in this group today has gone to my head and I thought
I might as well just join in for the hell of it.

Si

[Cub Driver]

>Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in the
>US?

There was no campaign. There was a spontaneous national revulsion
against France. A few (a very few) newspapers jumped on the bandwagon
after it had already begun to roll down the street.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank Vaughan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > France, if you recall, has for years been excessively rude to US
> > tourists.
>
> Oh come on, you can't criticise people for having a hobby. :^) This
maybe
> something of a generalisation, but call it an un-scientific observation:
> North American tourists (I'll include Canadians too, why not) often
*appear*
> to be of the opinion than anyone and everyone in the countries they visit
is
> there solely for their benefit, like we're all staff at Disneyland or
> something. When I hear a whiney kid point at an old house (say 40 years+)
> and go "Gee Ma, is that a castle?" it's hard not to be rude. (Ok, so
> that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I did hear it from one pointing at a
> church once.)
>
> BTW, don't take this post too seriously, it's just all the manic
> nationalistic attitude in this group today has gone to my head and I
thought
> I might as well just join in for the hell of it.

Say what you want to say, it is why we fight.

Bring forward the BMFH ...

[Simon Robbins]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> France is not a "race" so French bashing is not racist.

Interestingly (maybe) British law doesn't see it the same way. (I'd be
interested to know the American legal position.) In UK law, there is no
distinction between discriminating against someone's nationality of origin
and their ethnic race. Therefore French-bashing in the UK could be
considered a criminal offence, but I think it would probably only likely
come into play as a reason for a greater offence, i.e. racially motivated
violent attack, or discrimination at work. (Though logically verbal abuse
against someone because they're a different colour is no different to if
they're a different nationality.)

Si

[BUFDRVR]

>You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full of
>Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the help
>of the germans... :) :)

Ahh, the enlightened *Western* Eurotrash...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>We certainly are grateful for the support of the Polish people and
>their Government. I am afraid that the use of terms such as
>"euro-wieni" etc have become associated with the French to the point
>where they are used interchangeably. Please forgive this usage, we
>certainly do not include the Poles in the reference.

And I will apologize for generalizing. Polands contribution before, during and
currently in Iraq is courageous and shows a lot of character and is very much
appreciated by nearly every American. By saying "European", I was meaning
western European (i.e. Germany, France and Belgium).


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Regardless of how well the removal of Saddam Hussein has gone, the pretence
>for war was to remove a clear and present chemical and/or biological threat.
>It's kind of clear there wasn't one, which was France's opinion all along
>(and the reason for the veto against the stated reason for war) and now all
>those offensive vetoing nations have been proved right. Isn't it time Bush
>made an apology to the French people for all the slurs his politicians and
>populace have so mistakenly made, live on international TV? :^)

Disagreeing with the US position was absolutely acceptable. Vetoing a UN
resolution (even though one was never submitted) would have been acceptable as
well. Telling eastern Europe that if they want in to the EU they need to stop
supporting the US crosses the line from working in your own national self
interest to interfering in an other countries percieved national self interest.
Totally unacceptable from a supposed "friendly" nation.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>When I hear a whiney kid point at an old house (say 40 years+)
>and go "Gee Ma, is that a castle?" it's hard not to be rude.

You're kidding right? You want to swap stupid tourist stories? Every nation has
them. I was walking down the main street in Hoboken NJ listening to a German
(or Belgian or Dutch or Danish, couldn't really tell), ask his American buddy
if Hoboken was part of New York City. Unlike you, his friend replied politely
(pointing east across the Hudson); "that's NYC, we're still in New Jersey". I
got a chuckle out of it, but would not have been so French as to laugh out
loud.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
guy wastiaux > wrote:

> I'll admit something to please you : many ppl in France disagree with
> the US position on Iraq, some quite violently. However, a lot of this
> flaming comes from the lower, less-educated France (in my opinion).

I guess summing up most of France's media as "lower" and "less educated"
is pretty appropriate, then.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >Read the Kay report. Not the "press summaries," the actual report.
> >
> >They had an ongoing program, materials, labs, and a lot of stockpiles we
> >haven't had a chance to even look at yet.
>
> open you eyes.

I have. You haven't.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>
> Oh great, a revisionist.

I'm still waiting for that "front page" news reporting you were talking
about.

Instead of the half-hearted attempts at passing off opinion pieces off
as "news."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
> m...
>
> Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in
> the US?

Yes. There was not, by any stretch, a campaign to bash the French for
their pathetic actions of this year.

The French got bashed, for sure, but it was not anything like a
"campaign," and not that common, compared to the official French line of
portraying the US as an evil empire in the making.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mike]

Colonial power?Germany?...hum!...
what you say is true France+Germany+Belgium are only 3 countries...under 25,
but also remember how much of the EU gnp those three represent....
France and Germany,except Germany (lol),can make good food,but can also
make 3 times the national product of the ten new countries,Poland included.
Sorry,but that is a fact,and that counts also.


"lekomin inc" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british.
I'm
> Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
> against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
> EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny
bunch
> of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
> they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> take care
> lekomin inc
>
>

[Mike]

Chirac never said that,this is stupid!
What he said was when you belong to a family,
you talk to the other members before to act or engage that way.
That's all,and I'm afraid he was right.

"Stephen Harding" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> lekomin inc wrote:
>
> > Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british.
I'm
> > Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> > Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for
and
> > against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004
enlargement
> > EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny
bunch
> > of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..)
but
> > they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> > take care
>
> Hey, you guys are "New Europe".
>
> Chirac says you don't count!
>
>
> SMH

[Mike]

True,but,really,nobody said that,nobody asked poland or any other to dtop
support us,
that's not the point.The way it has been done,and announced is the point.


"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >Regardless of how well the removal of Saddam Hussein has gone, the
pretence
> >for war was to remove a clear and present chemical and/or biological
threat.
> >It's kind of clear there wasn't one, which was France's opinion all along
> >(and the reason for the veto against the stated reason for war) and now
all
> >those offensive vetoing nations have been proved right. Isn't it time
Bush
> >made an apology to the French people for all the slurs his politicians
and
> >populace have so mistakenly made, live on international TV? :^)
>
> Disagreeing with the US position was absolutely acceptable. Vetoing a UN
> resolution (even though one was never submitted) would have been
acceptable as
> well. Telling eastern Europe that if they want in to the EU they need to
stop
> supporting the US crosses the line from working in your own national self
> interest to interfering in an other countries percieved national self
interest.
> Totally unacceptable from a supposed "friendly" nation.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mike]

Totally true!


"Pierre-Henri Baras" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> > "IO" > wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all
the
> > > french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French
> cowardy...
> >
> > Well, I haven't been, but with so many French papers and media outlets
> > putting out "America is evil!" content, it has to go back somewhere.
>
> Example please?? Apart from right and left wing extremist tablids, you'll
> find NO front page as outragous as some US papers were during the
> french-bashing period.
> Didn't you understand that the "Amercia is evil" myth is just to justify
> more French bashing????
> If you want to do some research to back your claims, the major french
papers
> are LeMonde, LeFigaro, Liberation, LeParisien, France-Soir, LeCanrad
> Enchainé. Major TV channels are TF1, Fr2, FR3, Canal+ and M6.
> Please don't back your claims with stuff you saw on Fox or read in the
> NYPost.
> If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
> help.
>
> --
> _________________________________________
> Pierre-Henri BARAS
>
> Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
> http://www.ffaa.net
> Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
> http://www.aviation-fr.info
>
>

[Mike]

This Chad Irby is totally brainwashed...


"Pierre-Henri Baras" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>
> Oh great, a revisionist.
> Or if you really need help with the frenchbashing in the US media try
> http://www.miquelon.org/journalists.html
>
> PHB
>
>

[BUFDRVR]

>True,but,really,nobody said that,nobody asked poland or any other to dtop
>support us,
>that's not the point.The way it has been done,and announced is the point.

Wrong. Chirac made a statement at an EU meeting in February that "certain
nations" (paraphrase) needed to "keep their mouths shut" (paraphrase) if they
wanted to be granted admission to the EU. This was clearly directed at many
Eastern European nations who were openly supporting the US.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Stephen Harding]

Grantland wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >Jordan wrote:
> >
> >> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> >> USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
> >> when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
> >
> >Yep! It'll be a great day for you when China is Number One, huh?
>
> Yer damn tootin, Jew-slave. ****ing fat, stupid, ignorant yankee
> pigs. You dropped the ball, sad-sack. You let down the world.

Ahhh Grantland!

You gift to the English language you!


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Simon Robbins wrote:

> "IO" > wrote in message
>
> > I agree Poland is not Europe... Poland is Third World... Iran and poland
> > have similar pils remember it...
>
> Christ... have you ever been to New England?

One has to wonder if you have.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Mike wrote:

> Chirac never said that,this is stupid!
> What he said was when you belong to a family,
> you talk to the other members before to act or engage that way.
> That's all,and I'm afraid he was right.

No you're correct. He didn't say Poland "didn't count".

He said they should "shut up".

Spin that any way you like.


SMH

> "Stephen Harding" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> >
> > lekomin inc wrote:
> >
> > > Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british.
> I'm
> > > Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> > > Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for
> and
> > > against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004
> enlargement
> > > EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny
> bunch
> > > of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..)
> but
> > > they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> > > take care
> >
> > Hey, you guys are "New Europe".
> >
> > Chirac says you don't count!
> >
> >
> > SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Mike wrote:
>
> Colonial power?Germany?...hum!...
> what you say is true France+Germany+Belgium are only 3 countries...under 25,
> but also remember how much of the EU gnp those three represent....
> France and Germany,except Germany (lol),can make good food,but can also
> make 3 times the national product of the ten new countries,Poland included.
> Sorry,but that is a fact,and that counts also.

If GNP (or more rightly, GDP) is what should determine political influence,
why aren't you Euros going along with the US?

Do you know how the GDP of France, or Germany or Belgium compares with that
of the US? Not very favorably.

And don't tell me the EU is about the same economic size as the US. Until
their is a *nation* called the "United States of Europe", I don't want to
hear it.


SMH

[George Shirley]

Dammit folks, can you just resist responding to the Western Europeans
for a while? My killfile is so full of French addresses it sounds like a
herd of frogs in here.

George

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >When I hear a whiney kid point at an old house (say 40 years+)
> >and go "Gee Ma, is that a castle?" it's hard not to be rude.
>
> You're kidding right? You want to swap stupid tourist stories? Every nation
> has
> them. I was walking down the main street in Hoboken NJ listening to a German
> (or Belgian or Dutch or Danish, couldn't really tell), ask his American buddy
> if Hoboken was part of New York City. Unlike you, his friend replied politely
> (pointing east across the Hudson); "that's NYC, we're still in New Jersey". I
> got a chuckle out of it, but would not have been so French as to laugh out
> loud.

You think you have it bad?

I live in Orlando.

Tourist capital of the friggin' *planet*.

Any bad story or comment you hear about Americans is a drop in the
bucket compared to everyday life in The City Beautiful...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Mike" > wrote:

> This Chad Irby is totally brainwashed...

....said the French guy who apparently doesn't read his own national
papers...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[ian maclure]

In article >, "IO" >
wrote:

> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
> racist thing. There's no much reasons to hate USA but tv shows like Bill
> O'reilly's one and newspapers like New York Post are part of these
> reasons. Please don't follow them in their unjustified stupid hate
> campaign.

We don't hate the French.
Hate implies fear and the French are..... well the French and
ipso facto irrelevant. We fear them not!
They leave themselves open to ridicule and we merely fill in the
spaces.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

In article >, "IO" >
wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "IO" > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
>>> racist thing.
>>
>> It's not a race issue.
>>
>> We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.
>
> If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
> french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French

Thats "cheese eating surrender monkeys" to be precise.

> cowardy... Remember Die Bien Phu

They lost.

> or french resistance against nazis...

They folded then spent the rest of the war ratting each other
out to the Gestapo.

> Your (american) behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans....
> And also Russia, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on
> Iraq resolution remeber this...

Oooooh, those damnable Canuckleheads, they are going to pay through
the nose for that......

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Stephen Harding > writes:
> Grantland wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>> >Jordan wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
>> >> USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
>> >> when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
>> >
>> >Yep! It'll be a great day for you when China is Number One, huh?
>>
>> Yer damn tootin, Jew-slave. ****ing fat, stupid, ignorant yankee
>> pigs. You dropped the ball, sad-sack. You let down the world.
>
> Ahhh Grantland!
>
> You gift to the English language you!

Grantland's still lurking about? He'd better stay on hos diet. If he
gains too much weight, he'll be left behind when the Last of the Boers
make their run for Madagascar. (After all, if you were a rich
Voortrekker trying to escape the ravening hordes, what would you
rather have in your plane - 100 kilos of noise, or 100 kilos of fuel?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and racist
> thing. There's no much reasons to hate USA but tv shows like Bill O'reilly's
> one and newspapers like New York Post are part of these reasons. Please
> don't follow them in their unjustified stupid hate campaign.

I didn't know that the French were a different race.

Can I sell you a nice surplus Italian army rifle ?


Only dropped once...



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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
> Stop calling "europeans" anybody living in Europe and not being british. I'm
> Polish as a matter of fact and I hate using "Europe" and "France and
> Germany" as synonyms. Actually if you take the number of countries for and
> against Iraqi Freedom both the current 15 EU and the post-2004 enlargement
> EU was FOR the US. The French the Germans and the Belgians are a funny bunch
> of people that can make good food (except for the Germans of course..) but
> they still live the lives of forgone colonial powers.
> take care
> lekomin inc
>

In case no one has mentioned it lately.

Thank you for you're support.

It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.



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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> > Please excuse the inclusion of Poland in "Europe" as it's commonly
> > used in these heated discussions.
>
> I agree Poland is not Europe... Poland is Third World... Iran and poland
> have similar pils remember it...
>

What was that about not insulting other countries ?


> I and others know that Poland and
> > other countries in Europe are level-headed. It seems that the
> > countries that have more recent experience with the harsh realities
> > have an adult appreciation for the dangers in the world. As one
> > American my working definition of "Europe" when it's being criticized
> > in this discussion is France and Germany and such. Most of us would
> > write "the weasel nations in Europe that have little to contribute
> > but hot air, and spend half their time on vacation or on strike"
> > except it's too much to type.
> >
> > Poland should be proud of their special forces and their assuming the
> > responsibility in these issues.
>
> Poland proud of :) :). Polish armed forces are below the russia's one :)

Russia has an armed force ?





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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
> help.


France has no culture,




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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
> You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full of
> Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the help
> of the germans... :) :)

So, did you want to buy that Italian rifle ?

Only dropped once....



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

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:59:28 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>In article >, says...
>>
>> If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
>> help.
>
>France has no culture,

*plonk*

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
>In case no one has mentioned it lately.

Your sentence no verb.

>Thank you for you're support.

"Thank you for you are support."??

>It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.

"It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
freedom."??

I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
are.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Skysurfer]

Stephen Harding wrote :

> He said they should "shut up".

In fact they should have, remember the "french missiles built in
2003" found in Irak ...

[ArVa]

"Cub Driver" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> >Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country was
> >built upon?
>
> Many Americans don't understand the concept of free speech, so I'm not
> surprised that the concept should elude a Frenchman.

Freedom of speech is not a concept known and practiced only by Americans.
Don't be so self-centered.

> The U.S. Constitution imposes upon me the duty to give another man the
> freedom to speak his mind. It does not, however, impose upon me a
> duty to listen.

Last time I checked, the US constitution had not been adopted yet as the new
UN chart, not even as the new Usenet one. Anyway, I get your point and
you're right, but the other poster seemed to raise conditions to that
freedom to speak, a sort of "you want to talk? Then you have to got a GDP or
a gun at least as big as mine"... Have we learn nothing from the previous
century?

> As for democracy--ayuh! That's what Americans for more than a hundred
> years have bled for, bringing democracy to Cuba, France, Iraq, and
> other unfortunate places. But loving democracy does not oblige us to
> treat M. Chirac with respect. Quite the contrary, in fact. The
> American brand of democracy has always had a strong vein of
> irreverance built into it.

Irreverance and objective criticism are fine. You can say whatever you want
about Chirac's policy or even the man himself, I don't care. He's a public
man, a politician, and therefore is exposed to that kind of treatment as it
goes with the job. What I can't stand is the concept of bashing an entire
country and its population with specious and tasteless arguments just
because you don't agree (or not even understand) its position.


ArVa

[ArVa]

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> >True,but,really,nobody said that,nobody asked poland or any other to dtop
> >support us,
> >that's not the point.The way it has been done,and announced is the point.
>
> Wrong. Chirac made a statement at an EU meeting in February that "certain
> nations" (paraphrase) needed to "keep their mouths shut" (paraphrase) if
they
> wanted to be granted admission to the EU. This was clearly directed at
many
> Eastern European nations who were openly supporting the US.
>

Chirac's statement was a rather poor one but there was no "if they wanted to
be granted admission to the EU" part. France alone does not have the power
to forbid countries to enter the Union and the idea probably not even
seriously crossed Chirac's mind.

ArVa

[ArVa]

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
m...
> > Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in
> > the US?
>
> Yes. There was not, by any stretch, a campaign to bash the French for
> their pathetic actions of this year.

Call me paranoid, but despite your denials I'm not so sure the French
bashing was not somewhat fueled by convenient "official source" leaks
(remember the helicopter parts, the passports, the missiles?) and high rank
official statements. Anyway, be it organized or not, it's more the extent of
the phenomenon that gives the impression of a campaign.

> The French got bashed, for sure, but it was not anything like a
> "campaign," and not that common, compared to the official French line of
> portraying the US as an evil empire in the making.

There is not (and never was), by any stretch, an official French line of
portraying the US as an evil empire. Seriously. I don't intend to play the
French gvt's advocate but you can take any declaration you'd like, you won't
find any offensive statement. On the other hand, who talked about
punishment? Which country representatives, at national, state or local
levels, isssued statements and decrees to harm the other's interests (and
I'm not only refering to the stupid "Freedom fries" incident)?

It's true a part of the French press (and therefore of the public opinion)
is usually very critic of the American policy, be it foreign, concerning
environmental issues or other fields (just like is a part of the US press
itself), but you won't find American *bashing* in it.

ArVa

[ArVa]

"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
>
> Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
> American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what???? Just one
> more magnanimous effort at humanitarianism?

Who is that cop killer?

>
> **** the French.
>

We have a pretty good record at doing it without external help, but thanks
anyway...

ArVa

[Mike]

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >True,but,really,nobody said that,nobody asked poland or any other to dtop
> >support us,
> >that's not the point.The way it has been done,and announced is the point.
>
> Wrong. Chirac made a statement at an EU meeting in February that "certain
> nations" (paraphrase) needed to "keep their mouths shut" (paraphrase) if
they
> wanted to be granted admission to the EU. This was clearly directed at
many
> Eastern European nations who were openly supporting the US.

No.This only means what he said,"they have missed a good occasion to keep
their mouths shut",
before asking other partners of the eu what they think.
Following is totally wrong,nobody,chirac included,ever talked about
influencing their admission to the EU considering that affair,nor
that to stop support US.
The problem is that when you're about to join a group,the first thing
to make is not to do anything outside this group without
first talk to the members of the group,at least,like they did.
That,and only that.


>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mike]

ok,you got it!
good guy...
nice,now.
A good sleep,no?

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In article >,
> "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > This Chad Irby is totally brainwashed...
>
> ...said the French guy who apparently doesn't read his own national
> papers...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mike]

"Tank Fixer" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> In article >, says...
> >
> > If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
> > help.
>
>
> France has no culture,

ahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahah ahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sure we don't have!!
waouhhh!
are you serious?

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

[Mike]

Then stay there,and please stop talking about things you don't know
anything.



"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> > >When I hear a whiney kid point at an old house (say 40 years+)
> > >and go "Gee Ma, is that a castle?" it's hard not to be rude.
> >
> > You're kidding right? You want to swap stupid tourist stories? Every
nation
> > has
> > them. I was walking down the main street in Hoboken NJ listening to a
German
> > (or Belgian or Dutch or Danish, couldn't really tell), ask his American
buddy
> > if Hoboken was part of New York City. Unlike you, his friend replied
politely
> > (pointing east across the Hudson); "that's NYC, we're still in New
Jersey". I
> > got a chuckle out of it, but would not have been so French as to laugh
out
> > loud.
>
> You think you have it bad?
>
> I live in Orlando.
>
> Tourist capital of the friggin' *planet*.
>
> Any bad story or comment you hear about Americans is a drop in the
> bucket compared to everyday life in The City Beautiful...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mike]

"ian maclure" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In article >, "IO" >
> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> "IO" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm italian and in my opinion the "french bashing" is a stupid and
> >>> racist thing.
> >>
> >> It's not a race issue.
> >>
> >> We make the same comments about any idiots who act like that.
> >
> > If you want to criticize Chirac ok... But please don't say that all the
> > french are monkeys or make stupid and false comments on French
>
> Thats "cheese eating surrender monkeys" to be precise.
>
> > cowardy... Remember Die Bien Phu
>
> They lost.
Like you did......
.......and like you will in Irak

>
> > or french resistance against nazis...
>
> They folded then spent the rest of the war ratting each other
> out to the Gestapo.
Waouh,a historian!....
>
> > Your (american) behaviour is very offensive to me and to europeans....
> > And also Russia, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Chile ecc was against usa on
> > Iraq resolution remeber this...
>
> Oooooh, those damnable Canuckleheads, they are going to pay through
> the nose for that......
>
> IBM
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>

[tscottme]

ArVa > wrote in message
...

>
> When one's acts have repercussions on the whole world, everyone has a
say.
> Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country
was
> built upon?
>
>
> Does the 20th century in Europe really match your idea of a garden
party?
> Yes, we have experienced wars and yes, we have experienced and still
> experience terrorism; just like you...
>
> Nobody denies that the wolf has to be taken out but the problem is
that the
> beast is not at the door but hides deep in the forest. One can go
after it
> swiftly, with dogs and horns, but then the wolf might escape (sounds
> familiar?), or one can go stealthy, ambush, and shoot it while it's
drinking
> at the pond.
>
> ArVa
>

The last I looked, American policy is decided by American leaders. You
can tell the other UN misfits that they can vote for the sun to stand
still or the Summer weather to stay moderate for all the good it does
them.

When the French and other weasel nations of Europe demonstrate they can
assume the responsibilities of modern nations perhaps I will expect
responsible action from them. Don't hold your breath. Kosovo proves
that nothing larger than a soccer riot should be trusted to them.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

ArVa > wrote in message
...
>
> Irreverance and objective criticism are fine. You can say whatever you
want
> about Chirac's policy or even the man himself, I don't care. He's a
public
> man, a politician, and therefore is exposed to that kind of treatment
as it
> goes with the job. What I can't stand is the concept of bashing an
entire
> country and its population with specious and tasteless arguments just
> because you don't agree (or not even understand) its position.
>
>
> ArVa

Yet I bet you've never opened your trap when a blithering Frenchmen
accuse Americans of riding horses all day and shooting at the ceiling
with their six guns.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Cub Driver > wrote in message
...
>
> The Wall Street Journal noted this morning that the reason UN
> peacekeeping forces are more and more drawn from poor nations is that
> they alone have the surplus troops for this sort of mission--troops
> who moreover are thrifty to maintain and proud of the job. With the
> exception of Britain's, European armies have been drawn down to the
> point where they are essentially useless. From what I've read earlier,
> that would also appear to be true of Canada's.
>
> So not only is the U.S. the "sole superpower," it is very nearly also
> the only democracy with an army. Think of NATO's war against
> Yugoslavia. All of continental Europe couldn't manage a war against a
> small Balkan nation, without the U.S. and Britain to do the heavy
> lifting.
>
>

Exactly right. All the bed wetters in that smelly nation beginning with
"F" keep whining about the hyper-power. The truth is the US forces are
about half of what they were during or just after the Reagan years. As
you note, it's less that the US has rushed ahead of everyone else, we've
just withered a lot less quickly while we've seriously upgraded key
components.



--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
...

>
> So France and the French support terrorists? Not terribly surprising.
>
> Al Minyard

The French hardly miss an opportunity to support terrorists.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Gunnar > wrote in message
...
>
> Could it be that we'l like for you to be of a higher standard than the
> rest... ?
>
> The only moral justification for us ( that is the vestern world )
being
> "better" than the rest is that we are in fact BETTER than the rest of
the
> world !
> And better means higher standards in treatment, letter of the law etc.
>
>

The truth is the arrogant Europeans aren't holding the US to a higher
standard, they set perfection as the minimal acceptable level of action
for the US and expect nothing from what they see as the "inferior
peoples" any where else. That's the most generous interpretation. The
rest of us know that the complaints of some of the Europeans and all of
the US liberals is aimed at undermining our resolve to do the hard
tasks. They remind me more of spoiled and lazy teenagers that bitch and
moan when mom and dad don't buy toys for them fast enough.

Remember all the "what about North Korea" just before the Iraq war? All
of the usual suspects were certain action in Iraq should be put on hold
while the DPRK was managed. Once the first bomb fell in Iraq the usual
suspects forgot all about North Korea, proving that all the Europeans
want is a good reason to complain.

If the Europeans wanted to solve these important problems they wouldn't
have spent much of the last 12 years helping Saddam get around sanctions
and easing the UN to just dropping the issue rather than solving the
problem. In short, solve a few problems the way you want them solved
rather than just complaining that the people that are working the
problem aren't working it the way you want.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule of going on strike and
going on vacation to respond.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Mike]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:38:46 GMT, Jordan > wrote:
>
> >Yea just keep making fun of every nation that doesn't agree with the
> >USA. You think you can take on the world? I can't wait for the day
> >when americans realise they are no longer the major world power.
> >
> >Don't you think enough people hate americans already? Why do you keep
> >acting to reinforce their perceptions?
>
> Well, you are going to need a tremendous amount of patience, the US
> will be the preeminent world power for many years to come. You should
> be thankful that the major world power is not Russia, China, or
> France.
>
> Al Minyard


Why?
What are you doing so well the others couldn't?
-The war,like in somalia,vietnam,maybe soon Irak and Afghanistan
-The freedom fries ( :))))) )
-Protecting the environment,no comment (too long list)
-Influencing other countries,Chile 73,south vietnam,iran before 79,....
-Protecting yourself and the whole world from really dangerous
countries,like South Korea,and not Irak....
-Protecting your own population from being shot in the streets?
-Protecting your own population from diseases,even the poor people
-Preventing your own people from becoming more fat than any other in the
world,including 40 % of your children
-Guaranting your children not to be shot in their college
-Preventing your population from being so uncultured that 50% of it could
not place India or France on a world map
-Showing the example to the rest of the world by admitting the strongest can
be wrong.
-Having to most numerous and fulfilled jails of the rich countries,and in
the same time the highest criminality
-Having a president that seizes the opportunity of 9/11 to make a law
including a very favorable article to protect his rich friends from a
pharmaceutic firm,who have sold
poison to handicaped children
-Having Fox "news"
-Telling the whole world the truth about the real danger of a country you
want to attack
-Having so good intelligence services you can't avoid something like
9/11,when some people inside those warn them very strongly
-Having a president not really been elected
-Being able to make better that any other country in advanced industries
(satellites launching,civil and military aircrafts,military
materials,computers,...)
-Following:....so that you don't have to influence countries to win markets
(boieng,lokheed Martin,....)
-Arresting,killing,or simply finding your ennemies,like saddam hussein or
bin laden
-Being greatly interested in all the crisis in the world (as a good
superpower) and not only in the ones you are financially involved.Having
good results
because of your power in resolving it,like
Rwanda,Palestinia,Tibet,Tchetchenia,...
-Prepare the future of humanity by showing the example,in every domain,like
fighting poverty and violence,education,culture,health (for all),third world
development,
protection of environment and natural resources,...
-Guarantee to the planet a good regulation system,that you,showing the
example,use and improve,and if necessary that you help to impose.A system
like the UN,
remplacing the law of the strenght,for the first time in history

Necessary to gon on?.....

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...

>
> *You* don't see that because you don't look, either that or because
CNN
> doesn't tell you. Though how about taking a look at how China (a
billion
> Communists no less) is a "favoured trading partner" of the US? How
about
> how the US ran to the aid of oppressive Saudi Arabia and totalitarian
Kuwait
> in 1991 also? People in glass houses and all that...
>

I'm sure the Europeans issue memos and hold conferences on all these
issues, I was asking about actions from the Europeans. Tell me how does
pointing out past US action demonstrate that Europe is doing anything on
these topics? Remember that was the point. Typical really, they must
teach only one thing in schools over there, how to complain about the
US.

Did Robert Mugabe feel sufficiently scolded for his actions by being
invited to dinner with Chirac?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Franck > wrote in message
...
> >You should,be thankful that the major world power is not Russia,
China, or
> France.
>
> Are you sure US is better ? .....
>

Millions of immigrants can't be wrong. Remember our security problem is
too many people want to come to the US, while the fences of tyrants keep
people in.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

George Shirley > wrote in message
...
> Dammit folks, can you just resist responding to the Western Europeans
> for a while? My killfile is so full of French addresses it sounds like
a
> herd of frogs in here.
>
> George

Be grateful that smell doesn't transmit across the net.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Tank Fixer > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> France has no culture,
>

Sure they have a culture, a culture of surrender to evil and resistance
to the US.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Frank Vaughan > wrote in message
...

>
> **** the French.
>

Please don't, it only seems to make more of them.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Franck > wrote in message
...
> >15,000 French deaths due to hot weather
>
> pathetic !! don't forget to speak about the 12000 people shot in the
US
> street in 2002
>
> further more you don't have any lecon concerning the medical
assistance !!!
>

I'm sure that means something in some language.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Chris Mark > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Garrison Hilliard"
>
> >The French are even hated by themselves!
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/qm7a
>
> Interesting article--and many of the other linked articles are quite
> interesting, as well.
>
> Here is an article by Clark S. Judge from a recent Policy Review that
may be of
> interest. It takes a look at US influence in the world and the
reasons for
> opposition to it from a very interesting angle. Title "Hegemony of the
Heart":
>
> http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/judge.html
>
> A few quotes to give you a sense of it:
>
> "The great battle of the twentieth century was between freedom and
> totalitarianism - an entirely political conflict. The great battle of
the
> twenty-first century may well be between the forces of creative
destruction and
> those of destructive preservation - much more a social and cultural
conflict.
> Americans will wonder, what have we done to be drawn into conflicts
like the
> present one? The answer is simple: Our example is the hope of those
who are
> striving and rising. We cannot escape this conflict by changing what
we do in
> foreign policy or other arenas of action, because in this arena our
power
> derives not from what we do but from who we are - and what we
represent to
> these new classes and those who oppose them.
> ****
> "Yet like it or not, the world will not let us go. It might be said
that in
> country after country, those who are threatened on the top are seeking
to
> combine with those who are frustrated on the bottom against those who
are
> rising in the middle. We ask why they hate us, and the answer is that
> "they" hate and fear so many people in their own countries for whom
America
> has become an emblem - and so far as they feel the same tug that these
new
> men and women feel, they hate themselves."
>
>
> Chris Mark

Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point that what threatens the French
and the radical anti-Americans around the world is the eagerness of
their young to embrace what the US offers while considering their local
culture as dated.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "IO" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> Poland proud of :) :). Polish armed forces are below the russia's one :)
Poland beat crap out of the Russians the last time we had an "official" war
(1920). I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are
substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with
Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT. Yet
in comparsion to the Eastern Europe there is nothing except Russia (of
course...) Ukraine and maybe Belarus that can match Poland. The Polish army
is changing fast. We have 48 F16bl52+ on order, which will be quite a
capable plane (with Pantera XR pod, Aim-9X, JSOW, JDAM to name the more
novel systems). Army has around 700 Patria AMV on order, which are the most
up to date wheeled infantry carriers on the market. We have just taken over
128 Leopard 2 A4 MTBs from Germany, and now there are talks of upgrading
them to the A5 or A6 standard. There are around 220 PT-91 Twardy MTBs in
line. Those are modifided T72Ms. More of the old T72 might get so called
NATO modification (including 120mm smoothbore gun). Medium range anti tank
will be handled by Israeli Spike systems.. I know that Javelin is better but
the price is outragous. Programs that might start sometime in near future
include a medium range UAV (Predator being the front runner of course)
medium and heavy lift helo (personally I love EH101 but I'm pretty sure we
will end up with UH-60L and hopefully some Chinooks)

To sum up, Poland might be a dwarf in comparsion to the UK or US but it is a
respectable force to be rekoned with in Eastern Europe.
take care
lekomin inc

[redc1c4]

lekomin inc wrote:
>
> U¿ytkownik "IO" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> > You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full
> of
> > Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the
> help
> > of the germans... :) :)
>
> you must be italian, eh? I am saddened by the fact that the nation that have
> us lamborgini and ferrari is no competent in producing a good Formula 1
> driver. Ferarri got the title with the help of... well of a german.
> Secondly, according to durex poll, italians enjoy the least amount of sex a
> year.
> take care you kazzo
> lekomin inc

why do Italian men grow mustaches?

redc1c4,
so they'll look more like their mothers. %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[tscottme]

Mike > wrote in message
...

>
>
> Why?
> What are you doing so well the others couldn't?

And yet the weak Europeans run to the US to solve their problems. When
they can't cajole the US into adopting another of their pointless
programs the Europeans sulk away and give up. When the US announced it
would not implement Kyoto, only Romania had signed it. Afterwards they
rushed to sign it so they could whine that the US wasn't serious. In
two years the Europeans couldn't manage to sign Kyoto. The Europeans,
like most people, know that their actions are hardly important, so they
can adopt any feel-good policy they want.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...

>
> Is that before or after all the Americans realised their government
had lied
> (or been so unbelievably badly informed) on the existance of WMDs?
> Regardless of how well the removal of Saddam Hussein has gone, the
pretence
> for war was to remove a clear and present chemical and/or biological
threat.
> It's kind of clear there wasn't one, which was France's opinion all
along
> (and the reason for the veto against the stated reason for war) and
now all
> those offensive vetoing nations have been proved right. Isn't it time
Bush
> made an apology to the French people for all the slurs his politicians
and
> populace have so mistakenly made, live on international TV? :^)
>
> Si

Since you seemed to miss the reasons the first time around you might
want to read this.

Why We Went to War
By Robert Kagan and William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | October 13, 2003


"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and
chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf
War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the
inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the
British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might
have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't
know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the UN and
for the UN to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if
you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just
continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003


FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew
about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. And most of
what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had
nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence
collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence
Agency--an idea we admit sounds more attractive all the time--the case
for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we
knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the
Iraqis themselves admitted it.

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in
the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in
1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of a surprisingly
advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own
admission and UN inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands
of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for
the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the UN would never have
made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped
weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive
biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq
produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805
tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to
produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the
purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical
weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ
agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents
(anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi
government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list,
including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service
had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was
what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not
any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that
has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

For in all the years after those admissions, the Iraqi government never
explained, or even tried to explain, to anyone's satisfaction, including
most recently, that of Hans Blix, what had become of the huge quantities
of deadly weapons it had produced. The Iraqi government repeatedly
insisted that most of the weapons had been "secretly" destroyed. When
asked to produce credible evidence of the destruction--the location of
destruction sites, fragments of destroyed weapons, some documentation of
the destruction, anything at all--the Iraqis refused. After 1995, the UN
weapons inspection process became a lengthy cat-and-mouse game, as
inspectors tried to cajole Iraqis to divulge information about the fate
of these admitted stockpiles of weapons. The inspectors fanned out
across the country looking for weapons caches, stashes of documents, and
people willing to talk. And sometimes, the inspectors uncovered
evidence. Both American and French testers found traces of nerve gas on
remnants of warheads, for instance. The Iraqis claimed the evidence had
been planted.

After 1996, and partly as a consequence of the documents they had
discovered and of Iraqi admissions, weapons inspectors must have started
getting closer to uncovering what the Iraqis were hiding. For at about
that time, inspectors' demands to visit certain facilities began to be
systematically blocked by Saddam. There was the famous confrontation
over the so-called "presidential palaces," actually vast complexes of
buildings and warehouses, that Saddam simply declared off-limits to
inspectors.

At the end of 1997, this limitation on the inspectors' freedom of
movement precipitated an international crisis. The Clinton
administration demanded that the inspectors be given full access to the
"palaces." The Iraqis refused. Instead, Saddam demanded the removal of
all Americans from the UN inspection team and an end to all U-2 flights
over Iraq, and even threatened to shoot the planes down. In case there
was any doubt that his aim was to conceal weapons programs that the
inspectors were getting close to discovering, Iraq at this time also
began moving equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons out of
the range of video cameras that had been installed by the UN inspection
team.

The New York Times reported at the time that the UN weapons inspectors
(not American intelligence) believed that Iraq possessed "the elements
of a deadly germ warfare arsenal and perhaps poison gases, as well as
the rudiments of a missile system" that could launch the warheads. But
because of Saddam's action at the end of 1997, the Times reported, the
UN inspection team could "no longer verify that Iraq is not making
weapons of mass destruction" and specifically could not monitor
"equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter
of hours." Saddam's precipitating of this crisis was a bold move, aimed
at splitting the UN Security Council and isolating the Clinton
administration. And it worked. The Clinton administration tried but
failed to get French and Russian support at the Security Council either
for military action or for a tightening of sanctions to force Saddam to
cease these activities and comply with his commitment to disarm. The
French and Russian position by 1997 was that the "books" should be
closed on Iraq's WMD programs, sanctions should be lifted, and relations
with Saddam should be normalized. That remained the French position for
the next five years.

It was in response to this crisis that we at this magazine began calling
for Saddam Hussein's ouster by means of a ground invasion. And in a
letter sent to President Clinton on January 26, 1998, we and a number of
other former government officials urged military action against Saddam
on the grounds that the situation had become untenable and perilous. As
a result of recent events, we wrote, the United States could


no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue
to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN
inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing
weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.
Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems
highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not
impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production.
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to
enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will
be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the
not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any
reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously
destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.

IN EARLY 1998, the Clinton administration, following this same logic,
prepared for war against Iraq. On February 17, President Clinton spoke
on the steps of the Pentagon to explain to the American people why war
was necessary. The speech is worth excerpting at length, because it was
then and remains today the fundamental case for the invasion of Iraq and
the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

President Clinton declared that the great threat confronting the United
States and its allies was a lethal and "unholy axis" of international
terrorists and outlaw states. "They will be all the more lethal if we
allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
and the missiles to deliver them." There was, Clinton declared, "no more
clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime
threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the
security of all the rest of us." Before the Gulf War of 1991, Clinton
noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not
once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical
weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign
adversary and even against his own people." At the end of the Gulf War,
Saddam had promised to reveal all his programs and disarm within 15
days. But instead, he had spent "the better part of the past decade
trying to cheat on this solemn commitment." As Clinton explained:


Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had
left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then
uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would
simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear
declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six
different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been
rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He
revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and
the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to
developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons
stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just
simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the
truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things,
an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer
and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which
have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one
palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. .
.. .

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history
of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his
capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver
them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM
inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and
biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the
capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many
more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to
ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that
the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude
that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating
destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the
very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us
unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the
United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass
destruction program.

The Clinton administration did not in fact respond. War was averted by a
lame compromise worked out by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. But
within a few months, Saddam was again obstructing UN inspectors, driving
a deeper wedge into the UN Security Council and attempting to put a
final end to the inspections process. He succeeded. At the end of 1998,
the Clinton administration launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day
missile and bombing attack on Iraq that was aimed principally at known
and suspected facilities for producing weapons of mass destruction and
missiles. The effect of the bombings on Iraq's programs and stockpiles,
however, was unknown, as Clinton acknowledges. But one effect of
Operation Desert Fox was that Saddam expelled the UN inspectors
altogether. Beginning in December 1998 and for the next four years,
there were no UN inspectors in Iraq.

What did Saddam Hussein do during those four years of relative freedom?
To this day, no one knows for sure. The only means of learning Iraqi
activities during those years were intelligence, satellite photography,
electronic eavesdropping, and human sources. The last of these was in
short supply. And, as we now know, the ability to determine the extent
of Saddam's programs only by so-called technical means was severely
limited. American and foreign intelligence services pieced together what
little information they could, but they were trying to illuminate a dark
cave with a Bic lighter. Without a vast inspection team on the ground,
operating unfettered and over a long period of time, it was clear that
the great unanswered questions regarding Iraq--what happened to the old
stockpiles of weapons and what new programs Saddam was working on--could
never be answered.

The rest of the story, we assume, most people remember. The Bush
administration's threat of war beginning last summer led France and
Russia to reverse themselves and to start taking the Iraq weapons issue
seriously again. In UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the Security
Council agreed on a new round of inspections, during which Saddam was to
do finally what he had promised to do back in 1991 and ever since: make
a clean breast of all his programs, answer all the unanswered questions
about his admitted stockpiles of weapons, and fully disarm. Resolution
1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide "a currently accurate,
full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to
develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles,
and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and
dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings
and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components,
stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and
work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as
all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any
which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or
material."

Iraq did not comply with this demand within 30 days--or, for that
matter, within 90. In his March 6, 2003, report to the UN Security
Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX
remained unaccounted for. In the last chance given to Iraq by Resolution
1441, Iraq had failed to provide answers. As Blix reported again in May
2003, "little progress was made in the solution of outstanding
issues....the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such
resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by
the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."

We have retold this long story for one simple reason: This is why George
W. Bush and Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar led their governments and a
host of others to war to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in March 2003.
It was not, in the first instance, to democratize the Middle East,
although we have always believed and still believe that the building of
a democratic Iraq, if the United States succeeds in doing so, will have
a positive impact on the Arab world. It was not to increase the chances
of an Arab-Israeli peace, although we still believe that the removal of
a dangerous radical tyrant like Saddam Hussein may make that difficult
task somewhat easier. It was not because we believed Saddam Hussein had
ordered the September 11 attack, although we believe the links between
Saddam and al-Qaeda are becoming clearer every day (see Stephen F.
Hayes's article on page 33 of this issue). Nor did the United States and
its allies go to war because we believed that some quantity of
"yellowcake" was making its way from Niger to Iraq, or that Saddam was
minutes away from launching a nuclear weapon against Chicago. We never
believed the threat from Saddam was "imminent" in that sense.

The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic
threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and
barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and
the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat
he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that
justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have
justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998. It was
why Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, and many other top
officials had concluded in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was an
intolerable menace to his neighbors, to American allies, and ultimately
to the United States itself, and therefore had eventually to be removed.
It was also why a large number of Democrats, including John Kerry and
General Wesley Clark, expressed support for the war last year, before
Howard Dean and his roaring left wing of the Democratic party made
support for "Bush's war" untenable for Democratic candidates.


NOTHING THAT HAS or has not been discovered in Iraq since the end of the
war changes this fundamental judgment. Those who always objected to the
rationale for the war want to use the failure so far to discover large
caches of weapons to re-litigate the question. Democrats fearful of
their party's left wing are using it to jump off the positions they held
last year. That's politics. But back in the real world, the fact that
David Kay's inspections teams have not yet found out what happened to
Saddam's admitted stockpiles is not surprising. UN weapons inspectors
did not find those caches of weapons in 12 years; Kay and his team have
had about four months. Yes, we wish Saddam had left his chemical
munitions and biological weapons neatly stacked up in a warehouse
somewhere marked on the outside with a big, yellow skull and crossbones.
We wish he had published his scientists' nuclear designs in the daily
paper. Or we wish we could find the "Dear Diary" entry where he explains
exactly what happened to all the weapons he built. But he did not leave
these helpful hints behind.

After Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. military was led by an Iraqi to
a part of the desert where, lo and behold, a number of MiG fighter jets
had been buried under the sand. Note that the Americans did not discover
the jets themselves. Discovering chemical and biological munitions will
be somewhat harder. Kay recently reported to Congress that there are
approximately 130 Ammunition Storage Points scattered across Iraq, a
country the size of France. Many of the ammunition depots take up more
than 50 square miles. Together they hold 600,000 tons of artillery
shells, rockets, aviation bombs, and other ordinance. Under Saddam, UN
inspectors learned, the Iraqi military stored chemical ordnance at the
same ammunition depots where the conventional rounds were stored. Do you
know how many of the 130 Iraqi ammunition depots have been searched
since the end of the war? Ten. Only 120 to go.

Saddam Hussein had four years of unfettered activity in which to hide
and reconfigure his weapons programs. Our intelligence on this, as we
noted earlier, may have been lousy. David Kay's task has essentially
been to reconstruct a story we don't know. In fact, he's learned quite a
bit in a very short time. For instance, as Kay reported to Congress, his
team has uncovered "dozens of WMD-related program activities and
significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during
the inspections that began in late 2002" (emphasis added). In addition,
based on admissions by Iraqi scientists and government officials, Kay
and his team have discovered:

* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment suitable for research in
the production of chemical and biological weapons. This kind of
equipment was explicitly mentioned in Hans Blix's requests for
information, but was instead concealed from Blix throughout his
investigations.

* A prison laboratory complex, which may have been used in human testing
of biological weapons agents. Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN
inspections in 2002 and 2003 were explicitly ordered not to acknowledge
the existence of the prison complex.

* So-called "reference strains" of biological organisms, which can be
used to produce biological weapons. The strains were found in a
scientist's home.

* New research on agents applicable to biological weapons, including
Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing research on ricin and
aflatoxin--all of which was, again, concealed from Hans Blix despite his
specific request for any such information.

* Plans and advanced design work on new long-range missiles with ranges
up to at least 1,000 kilometers--well beyond the 150-kilometer limit
imposed on Iraq by the U.N. Security Council. These missiles would have
allowed Saddam to threaten targets from Ankara to Cairo.

In addition to these banned activities, which were occurring right under
the noses of the UN inspectors this past year, Kay and his team also
discovered a massive effort to destroy evidence of weapons programs, an
effort that began before the war and continued during it and even after
the war. In the "looting" that followed the fall of Baghdad, computer
hard drives were destroyed in government buildings--thus making the
computers of no monetary value to actual looters. Kay also found
documents burned or shredded. And people whom the Kay team tried to
interview were in some cases threatened with retaliation by Saddam
loyalists. Indeed, two of the scientists were subsequently shot. Others
involved in the weapons programs have refused to talk for fear of
eventual prosecution for war crimes.

Nevertheless, Kay has begun piecing together the story of what happened
to Saddam's weapons and how he may have shifted direction in the years
after 1998. It is possible that instead of building up large stockpiles
of weapons, Saddam decided the safer thing would be to advance his
covert programs for producing weapons but wait until the pressure was
off to produce the weapons themselves. By the time inspectors returned
to Iraq in 2002, Saddam was ready to be a little more forthcoming,
because he had rejiggered his program to withstand somewhat greater
scrutiny. Nevertheless, even then he could not let the inspectors see
everything. Undoubtedly he hoped that if he could get through that last
round, he would be home free, eventually without sanctions or further
inspections.

There are no doubt some Americans who believe that this would have been
an acceptable outcome. Or who believe that another six months of
inspections would have uncovered all that Saddam was hiding. Or that a
policy of "containment"--which included 200,000 troops on Iraq's borders
as an inducement to permit inspections--could have been sustained
indefinitely both at the UN Security Council and in Washington. We
believe the overwhelming lesson of our history with Saddam is that none
of these options would have succeeded. Had Saddam Hussein not been
removed this year, it would have been only a matter of time before this
president or some future president was compelled to take action against
him, and in more dangerous circumstances.

There are people who will never accept this logic, who prefer to
believe, or claim to believe, that the whole Iraq affair was, in the
words of Ted Kennedy, a "fraud" "made up in Texas" for political gain,
or who believe that it was the product of a vast conspiracy orchestrated
by a tiny little band of "neoconservatives." Some of the people
propagating this conspiratorial view of the Iraq war are now running for
the Democratic nomination for president; one of them is even a former
general who led the war against Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. We wish them
the best of luck selling their conspiracy theories to the American
people. But we trust Bill Clinton won't be stumping for them on this
particular issue.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "IO" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> You are Polish? And are you proud of being Polish? Italian roads are full
of
> Polish whores... The only good things that poland produces without the
help
> of the germans... :) :)

you must be italian, eh? I am saddened by the fact that the nation that have
us lamborgini and ferrari is no competent in producing a good Formula 1
driver. Ferarri got the title with the help of... well of a german.
Secondly, according to durex poll, italians enjoy the least amount of sex a
year.
take care you kazzo
lekomin inc

[lekomin inc]

Uzytkownik "Stephen Harding" > napisal w wiadomosci
> Hey, you guys are "New Europe".
>
> Chirac says you don't count!
I am Polish but my opinions about the French are biased. On one hand, we
"the Polish people" love Napoleon (the fastest way of euthanasia: telling a
Spanish person you love Napoleon), but on the other we trully hate somebody
telling us to shut up (remember the Letter of Eight, in support of the US
before Iraq? Poland was gangraped by France and Germany for signing it).
Thirdly, I am London School of Economics educated person and I adopted the
British way of saluting the French. The famous Two Finger Salut :) Longbow
(and I am not talking about the AH-64D :P) was a great weapon ;)

take care
lekomin inc

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "Mike" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> Chirac never said that,this is stupid!
> What he said was when you belong to a family,
> you talk to the other members before to act or engage that way.
> That's all,and I'm afraid he was right.
and what family president Chirac contacted before critising the USA over
Iraq? I don't remember any French talking to the Spanish, Italians, the
Dutch or Poles? He is used to presenting the FRENCH point of view as the EU
point of view. And that drives me crazy.
take care
lekomin inc

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "Pierre-Henri Baras" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> don't worry mate, we feel the same way about you!
no hard feelings ;) after all you have the H bomb :PPP
> and yet we (the 3 countries you mentionned) have 36% of the seats at the
> European Parliament....you know the institution that's going to determine
> the future of Poland in the EU...
you mean the Constitution? Honestly speaking im for the European integration
the the largest possible extent. I may live with laws written in Brussels, I
may live in the EU police and EU courts enforicng them, I may even live with
an EU army. EU Medical Insurance and Pension system. Those might be great
ideas. But I hate seeing EU being hijacked by the French and the Germans. I
don't like the Continental tax and pension systems. I think the British are
much better. I don't like overregulation and the state intervention for
example in defence industries.. I hate double standards in defence
contracts. EU should be about taking all the best ingridients and cooking
the best possible meal, that anybody can live on. Eating Foie Gras might not
be to everybody's taste :)
The same things apply to the foreign policy. Support the US. Good. Don't
support the US. Good. But make it a collegial decision and not a French one
on behalf of the EU.
> You're so arrogant you could be French ;-)
hehehe ;)))
take care
lekomin inc
p.s. btw I look forward to the red EU passport after the 1st may 2004 :) I
just wonder i might be treated less friendly on the UK border then with a
Polish passport with brick-proof-let-him-in-in-any-case-British-visa in it,
which I have right now. :)

[lekomin inc]

a nice soul searching session ;)

I agree that the Polish contribution to the Iraqi Freedom might seem
pathetic to many people. But we have send our finest (GROM is the finest of
the Polish military units). We have no resources to send 10 thousand troops
neither now nor we will have itin 10 or 20 years. Polish troops went for the
Iraqi Freedom OP as we wanted to show that we care. In reality US/UK would
have done the same, that is superb, without Poles. Everybody knows that. But
in other times, maybe less fortunate for Poland then right now, we might
need help from countries that don't really need to help. We hope they will
help for seemingly idiotic reasons, the same as Poland did in Iraq. Freedom
is not granted and you need to fight for it.
take care
lekomin inc

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "Mike" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Colonial power?Germany?...hum!...
actually before the World War I they had some colonies in Africa...
> what you say is true France+Germany+Belgium are only 3 countries...under
25,
> but also remember how much of the EU gnp those three represent....
> France and Germany,except Germany (lol),can make good food,but can also
> make 3 times the national product of the ten new countries,Poland
included.
> Sorry,but that is a fact,and that counts also.
Sure. You want GDP voting? ;PPP Take the GDP of EU15, subtract the GDPs of
Germany, France and Belgium (the anti-US countries) and add the GDPs of 10
new memberstates (all pro-US). I can bet in this sort of GDP voting Germany
France and Belgium would loose.
take care
lekomin inc

[Stephen Harding]

Mike wrote:

> Maybe,this can be discussed,but that wasn't the point...
> it was about the ten new countries joining the eu
> you have difficulties in reading?

I understand you're writing in a non-native language, but you did write the
following:

> > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > Colonial power?Germany?...hum!...
> > > what you say is true France+Germany+Belgium are only 3 countries...under 25,
> > > but also remember how much of the EU gnp those three represent....
> > > France and Germany,except Germany (lol),can make good food,but can also
> > > make 3 times the national product of the ten new countries,Poland included.
> > > Sorry,but that is a fact,and that counts also.

Written in the context of Poland and "New Europe" being told to promote the EU
[French] line by Chirac (with the implication that EU membership could be
jeapordized BTW).

I had no difficulties reading your statement. Perhaps something got lost in
translation, or we're simply not communicating in the same context.

This seems to be par for the course between Americans and French these days.


SMH


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

phil hunt wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >
> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
>
> Your sentence no verb.
>
> >Thank you for you're support.
>
> "Thank you for you are support."??
>
> >It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.
>
> "It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
> freedom."??
>
> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
> are.

Quick! Get to your Oxford English Dictionary and look up the definition
for the word "ANAL"!

It will make you a better person.


SMH

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan > wrote:
>
>Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
>American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what?

Souind bizarre -- do you have details?

>**** the French.

Good idea, some french women are lovely.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[ian maclure]

In article >, "Tank
Fixer" > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
>> help.
>
>
> France has no culture,

Not true.
A vile calumny.
France has a living and vibrant culture.
I mean how else do you explain the holes in Roquefort cheese?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[MG]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...

> Why?
> What are you doing so well the others couldn't?

Everything

> -The war,like in somalia,vietnam,maybe soon Irak and Afghanistan

All noble causes that are or were worthy of our blood. Just because you
don't have the guts to do the right thing is not a reason to condemn them.
And I am no arm chair general but have been very much in harms way the last
couple years.

> -The freedom fries ( :))))) )

kinda digs at you huh?

> -Protecting the environment,no comment (too long list)

There is always a balance. If you are too stupid to see I can't help you.

> -Influencing other countries,Chile 73,south vietnam,iran before 79,....

Yea SV and Iran are paradises now.

> -Protecting yourself and the whole world from really dangerous
> countries,like South Korea,and not Irak....

You advocated war with NK then? Or is this just a smoke screen?

> -Protecting your own population from being shot in the streets?

I would love to fix this problem. Too bad the problem is lack of action in
persecuting criminal behavior and not, like some would have you believe, the
right to bear arms.

> -Protecting your own population from diseases,even the poor people

We have the best medical facilities in the world. Go ahead and deny it but
I would rather be sick here than anywhere else. Anecdotal to be sure, but
when I visited Europe with my wife, she developed a deadly illness. I
didn't know it at the time and we came home. While she was at deaths door I
told the doctor, I wish I would have taken her to a hospital over there. He
shook his head and said she would have died certain since they (the
Europeans) were not even close to our technology regarding treatment. She
recovered, barely, thank God.

Oh yea, our poor people are richer than most middle class anywhere else,
your point?

> -Preventing your own people from becoming more fat than any other in the
> world,including 40 % of your children

That is a personal decision and not the business of the government.

> -Guaranting your children not to be shot in their college

By taking away everyone's guns I suppose. Then they could maybe get blown
up huh.

> -Preventing your population from being so uncultured that 50% of it could
> not place India or France on a world map

Has to do with education idiot. Since the liberal scum has infested our
education system they are more apt to teach their liberal garbage than
geography.

> -Showing the example to the rest of the world by admitting the strongest
can
> be wrong.

But we are so seldom wrong there are few opportunities.

> -Having to most numerous and fulfilled jails of the rich countries,and in
> the same time the highest criminality

I am glad we have the criminals off the street. And if we stopped allowing
illegal immigrants in the country our jail population would drop by nearly
1/3. So I guess they are your criminals.

> -Having a president that seizes the opportunity of 9/11 to make a law
> including a very favorable article to protect his rich friends from a
> pharmaceutic firm,who have sold
> poison to handicaped children

Please. And I believe in the Easter Bunny. You should not believe all that
Eurotrash press. They do make thing up you know. No, I don't suppose you
did know.

> -Having Fox "news"

I know this one really digs you because now we don't have to be brainwashed
anymore by CNN.

> -Telling the whole world the truth about the real danger of a country you
> want to attack

As compared to your truth?

> -Having so good intelligence services you can't avoid something like
> 9/11,when some people inside those warn them very strongly

I am not sure you are intelligent enough to understand intelligence
analysis, so skip it.

> -Having a president not really been elected

We have laws in this country. We follow them. If you or some who lost the
election don't like the result, too bad. But we will follow the law.

> -Being able to make better that any other country in advanced industries
> (satellites launching,civil and military aircrafts,military
> materials,computers,...)

We do make the best stuff and I am proud of that fact. It protects us very
well and can destroy our enemies just as well.

> -Following:....so that you don't have to influence countries to win
markets
> (boieng,lokheed Martin,....)

Our stuff is sold all over the world without silly protectionist measures or
government subsidies (unlike some froggy enterprises).

> -Arresting,killing,or simply finding your ennemies,like saddam hussein or
> bin laden

We are trying and we will bring in our man. But in the mean time they will
at least do no more, or very little harm.

> -Being greatly interested in all the crisis in the world (as a good
> superpower) and not only in the ones you are financially involved.Having
> good results
> because of your power in resolving it,like
> Rwanda,Palestinia,Tibet,Tchetchenia,...

As compared to France selling Iraq weapons and technology that could be used
to create weapons. Let's look closely at who has the moral high ground.

> -Prepare the future of humanity by showing the example,in every
domain,like
> fighting poverty and violence,education,culture,health (for all),third
world
> development,
> protection of environment and natural resources,...

You do it your way and we will do it our way. I think ours is the better so
don't even respond.

> -Guarantee to the planet a good regulation system,that you,showing the
> example,use and improve,and if necessary that you help to impose.A system
> like the UN,
> remplacing the law of the strenght,for the first time in history

The UN has become a club for loosers who are driven by jealousy and greed.
They are bent on attacking the US by using the UN system to tear down
anything that they can not control. Too bad but we will not play anymore.

And the nice part is, you can't do anything about it.

> Necessary to gon on?.....

You never got very far.

You have been brainwashed by your system. A system that does not recognize
or fears freedom. Power means everything to you and your kind. You are no
better that the Communists or Nazis. The end DOES justify the means to you
doesn't it?

Well I favor freedom. Some bad things will happen, but compared to the
horrendous things that could happen when governments obtain too much power
is far worse. Liberals, socialists, new age thinkers have latched on to
government as the answer to everything from what to teach in school to what
to eat apparently. That puts them on the wrong side of freedom.

And what the Hell ever happened to the French. They use to be on the side
of good, the side of freedom. Have their hearts been contaminated somehow?
Has the liberal socialist philosophy so damaged their souls that they can't
see right from wrong anymore? Since half the blood running though my veins
is French I am heartwrenched as a once noble people lashes out in support of
anything anti US in a pitfully attempt to maintain some relevance for their
existence. The power of the French is rapidly diminishing. They have to
attack the US and prop up the UN. I guess they beleive that if they can
secure a informal leadership position, maybe they can maintain some national
pride.

I pity them.


MG

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
> >American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what?
>
> Souind bizarre -- do you have details?
>

Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?) an
honorary citizen. Asked nobody before doing it. Publicity stunt.

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Simon Robbins]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> > Christ... have you ever been to New England?
>
> One has to wonder if you have.

On several occasions. I thought much of the rural areas looked quite third
world in comparison to the cities. (If we're using the term "third world"
as a description of Poland, which I don't think is.)

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> You're kidding right? You want to swap stupid tourist stories? Every
nation has
> them. I was walking down the main street in Hoboken NJ listening to a
German
> (or Belgian or Dutch or Danish, couldn't really tell), ask his American
buddy
> if Hoboken was part of New York City. Unlike you, his friend replied
politely
> (pointing east across the Hudson); "that's NYC, we're still in New
Jersey". I
> got a chuckle out of it, but would not have been so French as to laugh out
> loud.

Like I said, don't take it too seriously, I know we've all got stupid
tourist stories. I've always been treated politely in the US and I've
always tried to be polite to any tourists here, even if they be unfortunate
enough to cross my path on a bad day. My mother works for the tourist bureau
however, and boy has she got some stories! (A common one from (some)
visiting Americans is how difficult it is for them to navigate a car around
the town and why don't they make the roads bigger? The answer she gives
them of course is that many of the buildings on either side were built over
half a millenium ago and there tended to be less cars back then!) :^)

Si

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:37:01 +0200, lekomin inc > wrote:
>
>I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are
>substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with
>Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT.

Hmm. I'm not sure this is true? What fighter does Poland currently
use? I'm guessing it's the MiG-29, which is better than anything the
RAF has (until Typhoon becomes operational) or the elderly
Starfighters italy uses.

>Yet
>in comparsion to the Eastern Europe there is nothing except Russia (of
>course...) Ukraine and maybe Belarus that can match Poland. The Polish army
>is changing fast. We have 48 F16bl52+ on order, which will be quite a
>capable plane (with Pantera XR pod, Aim-9X, JSOW, JDAM to name the more
>novel systems). Army has around 700 Patria AMV on order, which are the most
>up to date wheeled infantry carriers on the market.

That's similar to what Finland, Sweden and Norway use, IIRC. There's
also a 6x6 vehicle in the same family, the XA. It seems a capable
family of vehicles. I particularly like the idea of a dual 120 mm
mortar, shown here:

<http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/amv8x8.html>

Note that this is better than the UK's new vehicle, which is
basically an overpriced and lightly armoured 4x4 truck.

The UK did have a program for an 8x8 vehicle, the Boxer. They spent
large amounts of money together with Germany and the netherlands
developing this vehicle (why? there's plenty of wheeled armoured
vehicles on the market -- the patria series, the MOWAG Piranha, the
BTR-80 and -90, etc. A new one is unlikely to be much better since
automotive technology is mature).

Then Britain decided it didn't want the Boxer, it wanted something
lighter that could be easily transported. So it's now paying over
the odds (GBP 400k per vehicle IIRC) for something that's likely to
be little better than the land rovers ans Saxons the British army
already uses (and are cheaper) or the Humvees the USA uses (and are
also cheaper).

So it seems to me that Poland is paying less overall and getting a
more combat-capable vehicle than Britain.

(The Patria vehicles are costing c. EUR 600k or GBP 400k per
vehicle, about what Britain is paying; but Britain has also thrown
away the money for the Boxer development).

>We have just taken over
>128 Leopard 2 A4 MTBs from Germany, and now there are talks of upgrading
>them to the A5 or A6 standard.

This is a pretty decent tank, comparable to the British Challenger
II.

> There are around 220 PT-91 Twardy MTBs in
>line. Those are modifided T72Ms. More of the old T72 might get so called
>NATO modification (including 120mm smoothbore gun).

Britain had some Challenger I tanks, not the latest thing, but
still a respectasble tank. Instead of storing them or using them for
reserve units, it stupidly gave them away (to Jordan).

>Medium range anti tank
>will be handled by Israeli Spike systems.. I know that Javelin is better but
>the price is outragous.

Spike is longer-ranged than Javelin (4 km v. 2.5 km). Did Poland
consider the Russian Kornet (range 5 km)?

The UK is currently considering either Javelin or Spike.

They aren't (AFAIK) considering Kornet, presumably because it might
offer better value for money (longer range, and probably cheaper).
AFAICT, the UK govmt isn't interested in value-for-money when buying
military equipment.

>Programs that might start sometime in near future
>include a medium range UAV (Predator being the front runner of course)

In a sensible world Poland would look to jointly developing with
other European partners a family of cheap UAVs/UCAVs/cruise
missiles. (Finland would be a good partner, since like Poland it
doesn't have money to waste on over-priced development programs).
iof a guy in New Zealand can build a cruise missile in his garage
for $5000, this ought to be a sensible proposition.

>medium and heavy lift helo (personally I love EH101 but I'm pretty sure we
>will end up with UH-60L and hopefully some Chinooks)

Chinook is nice because it can carry heavy loads. EH101 is a good
general-purpose helicopter, that could be used for transport,
recce, or adapted as an attack helicopter.

(I am as yet unpersuaded that dedicated attack helicopters such as
the WAH-64 used by the UK are value for money).

>To sum up, Poland might be a dwarf in comparsion to the UK

I dispute this point of view.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Since you seemed to miss the reasons the first time around you might
> want to read this.
<snip>

If I had neighbours like theirs I'd be claiming to be pretty adequately
tooled up too. Still doesn't answer the question about where it all went
too. You'd think someone who'd have no compunction using such weapons on his
own people would eventually use them as a last ditch attempt to save his own
regime, if he had them.

Si

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:18:59 +0200, lekomin inc > wrote:
>
>Sure. You want GDP voting? ;PPP Take the GDP of EU15, subtract the GDPs of
>Germany, France and Belgium (the anti-US countries) and add the GDPs of 10
>new memberstates (all pro-US). I can bet in this sort of GDP voting Germany
>France and Belgium would loose.

I think you will find that Germany's GDP on its own exceeds all 10
of the 2004 entrants, plus both the 2007 entrants, together.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:11:35 -0400, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>> >
>> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
>>
>> Your sentence no verb.
>>
>> >Thank you for you're support.
>>
>> "Thank you for you are support."??
>>
>> >It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.
>>
>> "It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
>> freedom."??
>>
>> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
>> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
>> are.
>
>Quick! Get to your Oxford English Dictionary and look up the definition
>for the word "ANAL"!
>
>It will make you a better person.

I wouldn't have made my comment if the OP hadn't said France has no
culture. Calling someone cultureless while being aparently unable to
construct grammatically correct sentences in inviting derision.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point that what threatens the French
> and the radical anti-Americans around the world is the eagerness of
> their young to embrace what the US offers while considering their local
> culture as dated.

I think the article came over a bit self-indulgent, but I think there's some
truth in what he says, (and what you suggest above.) Though in Europe at
least I don't think it's about the young considering their own cultures as
dated, but often the American money that comes with the imported
movies/clothing/music/food ensures that local products aren't able to
effectively compete. (Consider that the majority of movie theatres in the UK
are now owned by Amercan movie distributors, (like WB for example), it's
damn hard to get an audience for home grown movies without at least US
investment in the production. ) In effect, we're increasingly not given the
choice of accepting American cultural influence but feel it's being forced
upon us. Of course there are plenty of fine US movies/clothes/music/food,
but whoever remembers the good things?

Si

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:47:37 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> wrote:
>> >
>> >Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
>> >American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what?
>>
>> Souind bizarre -- do you have details?
>
>Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?) an
>honorary citizen.

Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Seems to me he was making a point against the death penalty and
against perceived miscarriages of justice in the USA.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:59:09 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"tscottme" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>> 9/11 is why we spend time going after the groups we see as dangerous and
>> less time sitting in cafes sipping bad coffee and worrying if they like
>> us or not. If you want a say in world events, become a US citizen or
>> get your country to take the responsibility to become powerful.
>
>When one's acts have repercussions on the whole world, everyone has a say.
>Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country was
>built upon?
>
>>
>> The Europeans have lived in a protected little green house so long they
>> seem to think that if all the nice people just agree to be nice there
>> will be nothing but joy for all of us. Someone has to shoot the wolf at
>> the door, even if the loud noise disturbs your garden party.
>
>Does the 20th century in Europe really match your idea of a garden party?
>Yes, we have experienced wars and yes, we have experienced and still
>experience terrorism; just like you...
>
>Nobody denies that the wolf has to be taken out but the problem is that the
>beast is not at the door but hides deep in the forest. One can go after it
>swiftly, with dogs and horns, but then the wolf might escape (sounds
>familiar?), or one can go stealthy, ambush, and shoot it while it's drinking
>at the pond.
>
>ArVa
>
>
>
The French put out a bowl of food and a bowl of water for the "wolf",
rather than help to control or kill it.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:29:53 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
m...
>
>Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in the
>US? I read a lot the US press avalaible on the Internet and believe me,
>there was such a campaign! And for some (fewer and fewer every day to be
>honest) it's not even over yet...
>
>According to me, the most infamous piece was Ron Marr's article titled "Why
>I hate the French". Just an excerpt :
>
>"[...] The French eat horse. They eat glands. They eat bugs. I know this
>because they rarely brush their teeth. Their women whine and complain and
>braid their armpit hair. Their men are beret-wearing twig-boys with bad
>complexions. All French people consider themselves intellectually superior,
>and I suppose they are if the comparison is to an incontinent house cat.
>Give them two minutes and they will inevitably rave of their sexual prowess,
>which is a little like Christopher Reeve bragging about his speed in the 40
>yard dash.[...]"
>The rest at : http://www.americandaily.com/item/1287, but you probably
>already had a good laugh reading it before.
>
>OK, that kind of bs was not on the front page of the LA times, of the Dallas
>Morning News or the Washington Post but it is printed in many local papers
>throughout the country and reach million people.
>OK, the vast majority of these people of course don't take it for word, but
>it spreads hatred and distrust. For instance, how many of your fellow
>citizens actually think, beyond any odds and despite the lack of evidence
>and the denials, that France actually supported and helped SH's regime
>*against* the US?
>
>
>ArVa
>
The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
years.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:04:13 +0200, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>> >Aren't freedom of speech and democracy the very concepts your country was
>> >built upon?
>>
>> Many Americans don't understand the concept of free speech, so I'm not
>> surprised that the concept should elude a Frenchman.
>
>Freedom of speech is not a concept known and practiced only by Americans.
>Don't be so self-centered.
>
>> The U.S. Constitution imposes upon me the duty to give another man the
>> freedom to speak his mind. It does not, however, impose upon me a
>> duty to listen.
>
>Last time I checked, the US constitution had not been adopted yet as the new
>UN chart, not even as the new Usenet one. Anyway, I get your point and
>you're right, but the other poster seemed to raise conditions to that
>freedom to speak, a sort of "you want to talk? Then you have to got a GDP or
>a gun at least as big as mine"... Have we learn nothing from the previous
>century?
>
>> As for democracy--ayuh! That's what Americans for more than a hundred
>> years have bled for, bringing democracy to Cuba, France, Iraq, and
>> other unfortunate places. But loving democracy does not oblige us to
>> treat M. Chirac with respect. Quite the contrary, in fact. The
>> American brand of democracy has always had a strong vein of
>> irreverance built into it.
>
>Irreverance and objective criticism are fine. You can say whatever you want
>about Chirac's policy or even the man himself, I don't care. He's a public
>man, a politician, and therefore is exposed to that kind of treatment as it
>goes with the job. What I can't stand is the concept of bashing an entire
>country and its population with specious and tasteless arguments just
>because you don't agree (or not even understand) its position.
>
>
>ArVa
>
We understand the French "position", standing with both hands raised
in surrender.

Al Minyard

[Franck]

>The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
>was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
>years.

this same 'vast majority' vote for the Big Arnold or Mickey Mouse :o))))

In fact only the US citizens ignorants like you believe that. I'm sure it's
not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG, you're only 5 or 6 with always the
same poor discourt

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[guy wastiaux]

I don't know what are your references, but they certainly aren't to be
trusted. Try Le Monde for example : arguably the best daily available in
France, which is center-oriented, the most serious one. Not once, since
the beginning of the war and since 9/11 did I read articles that were
speaking of the US as the root of all evil on Earth....Now you figure

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> guy wastiaux > wrote:
>
>
>>I'll admit something to please you : many ppl in France disagree with
>>the US position on Iraq, some quite violently. However, a lot of this
>>flaming comes from the lower, less-educated France (in my opinion).
>
>
> I guess summing up most of France's media as "lower" and "less educated"
> is pretty appropriate, then.
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[guy wastiaux]

What the hell do you think the US have done for the past 50 years ?
Asked other countries if they would like to discuss matters around a cup
of tea at the UN ?

BUFDRVR wrote:
Telling eastern Europe that if they want in to the EU they need to stop
supporting the US crosses the line from working in your own national self
interest to interfering in an other countries percieved national self
interest.
Totally unacceptable from a supposed "friendly" nation.



> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:47:37 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de
news:
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
> >> >American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what?
> >>
> >> Souind bizarre -- do you have details?
> >
> >Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?)
an
> >honorary citizen.
>
> Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
>
> Seems to me he was making a point against the death penalty and
> against perceived miscarriages of justice in the USA.


Absolutely, but as someone here said previously, we might as well start by
helping the innocent convicts on death-row. Even better, we could focus on
making our judicial system better than it is today.
The Paris city council is pretty critised since the socialist/green
coalition won the elections 2 years ago.
Then again, sollciting MAJ isn't like helping nazis out of Germany.
Some people here should try to relax!
PHB

[BUFDRVR]

>Chirac's statement was a rather poor one but there was no "if they wanted to
>be granted admission to the EU" part. France alone does not have the power
>to forbid countries to enter the Union and the idea probably not even
>seriously crossed Chirac's mind.
>
>

France may not have the ability to stop admission by themselves, but the intent
was clear; support the US and lose French support for EU admission.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>What the hell do you think the US have done for the past 50 years ?
>Asked other countries if they would like to discuss matters around a cup
>of tea at the UN ?
>

You'll have to be specific in an instance where the United States of America
attempted to subvert another *friendly* nations foreign policy goal(s) simply
for the effect of subverting those goals.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
> m...
> > > Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign in
> > > the US?
> >
> > Yes. There was not, by any stretch, a campaign to bash the French for
> > their pathetic actions of this year.
>
> Call me paranoid,

Okay, you're paranoid.

Glad that's settled.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
guy wastiaux > wrote:

> I don't know what are your references, but they certainly aren't to be
> trusted. Try Le Monde for example : arguably the best daily available in
> France, which is center-oriented, the most serious one. Not once, since
> the beginning of the war and since 9/11 did I read articles that were
> speaking of the US as the root of all evil on Earth....Now you figure

Read the editorials, especially the editorial cartoons.

Some of those were, quite frankly, insane.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On 16 Oct 2003 21:33:55 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>You'll have to be specific in an instance where the United States of America
>attempted to subvert another *friendly* nations foreign policy goal(s) simply
>for the effect of subverting those goals.

1956

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Mike]

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >Chirac's statement was a rather poor one but there was no "if they wanted
to
> >be granted admission to the EU" part. France alone does not have the
power
> >to forbid countries to enter the Union and the idea probably not even
> >seriously crossed Chirac's mind.
> >
> >
>
> France may not have the ability to stop admission by themselves, but the
intent
> was clear; support the US and lose French support for EU admission.

False,and not serious.But you,american,seem to be totally convinced of
it.Maybe you think we all react like
you when someone disagrees with us...

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:
> >
> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
>
> Your sentence no verb.

"Mentioned."

> >Thank you for you're support.
>
> "Thank you for you are support."??
>
> >It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.
>
> "It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
> freedom."??
>
> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
> are.

Ah, grammar equates to culture, I hadn't realized that.

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> >I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are
> >substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with
> >Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure this is true? What fighter does Poland currently
> use? I'm guessing it's the MiG-29, which is better than anything the
> RAF has (until Typhoon becomes operational) or the elderly
> Starfighters italy uses.
Well.. the Kosovo war had proven that the type of the plane is secondary in
importance as long as it carries the AMRAAM. BVR sets the standard in todays
airtoair. MiG29 (as is su27/30/35) is as everybody knows a very capable
dogfigter but that is exactly why NATO developed BVR weapons and tactics. I
think I can prove a point that it is easier to exploit the technological
advance (avionics, radar, datalinking) in BVR then in dogfight. I may call
BVR the fight of the avionics whereas dogfight is the fight of the airframe.
Currently both the RAF's F3 as well as Luftwaffe's F-4 ICE have the AMRAAM
capability albeit I am not sure about the mid-course guidance. I am pretty
sure F3 got this sort of upgrade before Iraqi Freedom, but the Phantoms have
not. Mid-course guidance is essential in exploiting the capabilities of
AMRAAM to the full (range, precision, "kill zone"). Secondly for instance
the Phantoms have no sqawk IFF. That is they can be identified as friendlies
but they cannot identify others as friendlies. The AWACS/Ground Controler
must do that for them. I don't really need to explain how important that is
in BVR?
In comparsion MiG29 has only a limited BVR capability. The Radar is crap,
the RWR and ECM are poor or not existent. It has no R77 capablity (at least
the Polish MiGs don't have it; MiG29M, MiG29 SMT of course have R77 in their
armoury) Western figters are able to attack better (radar, AMRAAM) and
defend better (active built-in ECM). In dogfight it is a class for itself
with IRST and helmet cueing. But F3 and F-4 would kill it much earlier in
the engagement with an AMRAAM. This scenario proved right with F16MLU/F15
and MiG29 over Serbia.

As for attack planes Poland has Su22M4, RAF gas Tornado GR4 and Luftwaffe
just simple Tornado IDS, that it plans to upgrade to a standard similar to
GR4. GR4 is probably the best attack plane in Europe (maybe Mirage 2000N
might be a contender). I don't even want to talk about the aircrew training
(RAF again the best in Europe, war experience wise). Armoury, again, is in
different class. GPS aided Paveway II and III, Storm Shadow, Brimstone..
Poland as yet has nothing like this.

Hence in both air-to-air as air-to-ground Poland is gigantly inferior in
comparsion to RAF and Luftwaffe.
>
> >Yet
> >in comparsion to the Eastern Europe there is nothing except Russia (of
> >course...) Ukraine and maybe Belarus that can match Poland. The Polish
army
> >is changing fast. We have 48 F16bl52+ on order, which will be quite a
> >capable plane (with Pantera XR pod, Aim-9X, JSOW, JDAM to name the more
> >novel systems). Army has around 700 Patria AMV on order, which are the
most
> >up to date wheeled infantry carriers on the market.
>
> That's similar to what Finland, Sweden and Norway use, IIRC. There's
> also a 6x6 vehicle in the same family, the XA. It seems a capable
> family of vehicles. I particularly like the idea of a dual 120 mm
> mortar, shown here:
Not exactly. AMV is a completely different vehicle then Patria X-Series. As
for now there are a few dozens of AMVs on order for Finland as AMOS mortar
system carriers...
>
> <http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/amv8x8.html>

.... as can be seen on the photo you provided :))) Poland will have an IFV
version with 30mm cannon (ATK MK44, which is a vvvvery good cannon) and
Spike missiles. All Polish AMVs par a few dozens 6x6 recce platforms will be
a 8x8 version (c130 airportable, albeit nobody knows in which C130 version
;P)

> The UK did have a program for an 8x8 vehicle, the Boxer. They spent
> large amounts of money together with Germany and the netherlands
> developing this vehicle (why? there's plenty of wheeled armoured
> vehicles on the market -- the patria series, the MOWAG Piranha, the
> BTR-80 and -90, etc. A new one is unlikely to be much better since
> automotive technology is mature).
I think one can divide the wheeled carriers in 8x8 configuration in two
categories: one is light and can be represented for instance by Pandour II
and Piranha III and a heavy one like Piranha IV, Boxer and the
French-project-I-dont-remember-monicker-for. AMV seets exactly between those
two categories. We in Poland basically love everything scandinavian (IKEA,
SAAB and VOLVO especially ;). I had sit in the Patria AMV and I can say that
in comparsion to Piranha III it is in different class. Ergonomics are great
(typicaly scandinavian), quality is superb (scandinavia again) and the price
is adequate (scandinavia again).
>
> Then Britain decided it didn't want the Boxer, it wanted something
> lighter that could be easily transported. So it's now paying over
> the odds (GBP 400k per vehicle IIRC) for something that's likely to
> be little better than the land rovers ans Saxons the British army
> already uses (and are cheaper) or the Humvees the USA uses (and are
> also cheaper).
those are different systems. UK is in big mess because:
1) TRACER program got cancelled in the US, and the future british scout
vehicle was to be based on this
2) BOXER is really crap - to heavy, to expensive, built for future with
todays technology
3) for liason vehicle they have chosen an italian vehicle!!!!! (an Iveco)
Anybody here ever drove a Fiat (bad and ugly) or Alfa Romeo (bad and
beautiful)?
> >We have just taken over
> >128 Leopard 2 A4 MTBs from Germany, and now there are talks of upgrading
> >them to the A5 or A6 standard.
>
> This is a pretty decent tank, comparable to the British Challenger
> II.
yep. A4 version is comparable and A5 and A6 are better then Challenger2.
LeoIIA5/A6 won competitions in Spain, Sweden and Greece against Challenger2.
>
> > There are around 220 PT-91 Twardy MTBs in
> >line. Those are modifided T72Ms. More of the old T72 might get so called
> >NATO modification (including 120mm smoothbore gun).
>
> Britain had some Challenger I tanks, not the latest thing, but
> still a respectasble tank. Instead of storing them or using them for
> reserve units, it stupidly gave them away (to Jordan).
well... PT-91s are crap but A tank is better then no tank.

> Spike is longer-ranged than Javelin (4 km v. 2.5 km). Did Poland
> consider the Russian Kornet (range 5 km)?
In contrary to the official line (Poland loves everybody... bla bla bla)
Polish forces, and especially the heavy component (MTBs, 150mm artillery,
SAMs, SPAAGs) will be tuned to face Russia. The light forces might be
deployable wherever they are needed but the heavy ones are to defend Poland
from the East. At it will stay that way. History tought as many lessons :)))
Therefore it is hardly possible to buy russian equipement including the
Kornet. It is a great antitank weapon but I am pretty sure russian
Shtora/Arena systems are close to perfect in making them useless (after all
they would know all the frequencies...). If ever the antitank missiles were
used, It would be agains Russian MBTs with Shtora/Arena fitted invading
Poland... I am pretty sure all Kornets would miss their targets.
>
> The UK is currently considering either Javelin or Spike.
go for javelin.
>
> They aren't (AFAIK) considering Kornet, presumably because it might
> offer better value for money (longer range, and probably cheaper).
> AFAICT, the UK govmt isn't interested in value-for-money when buying
> military equipment.
I think that you are wrong. The problem is that you cannot compare western
weapons with russian ones. For instance Su27 are simple stunning visually.
But closer you get to them the less atractive they seem. On a paper they
look powerful, but in reality they break more often then Yugo. The quality
is appaling. The spare parts management system is no existent. Those weapons
are not tested to the level the western ones are. Look at the future figters
programs. JSF/X35/YF35 is already running for around 8 years and the
inservice date is still 5 or 6 years out in the future. Russians just
started (or rather are trying to start) their own project with the same in
service date as F35. That means that the definition/testing/evaluation phase
will be 8 to 10 years shorter!!! Not to mention that what US/UK are spending
on JSF might be many times over the WHOLE Russian defence budget for a few
years combined. As a result the next russian figter will be technologically
inferior, less tested and therefore less capable then F35. In todays world
with money comes technology. If somebody disagrees please look at this year
Nobel laureates, and find somebody from outside US/UK (Peace Nobel does not
count :). To sum up the russian weapons are indeed cheaper but it is not a
miracle value for money deal, it is just inferior capablity and inferior
quality. The Brits should be happy, that their country is able to provide
their soldiers with the best warfighting tools for whatever amount of money.
After all there is absolutely no chance that the 1k Yugo would be a better
car then a 150K Aston Martin DB9.

> In a sensible world Poland would look to jointly developing with
> other European partners a family of cheap UAVs/UCAVs/cruise
> missiles.
Cheap and European does not match ;)) There are two ore-UCAV families in
Europe: Swedish and French (Duc series). Remember that France is just buying
Israeli UAV (of course rebranded by EADS) as it has non of its own. In
compariosn USA has Predator (A and turboprob B version) and of course Global
Hawk. It is developing numerous new UAVs as well as at least 2 serious UCAV
lines.. I wont even mention DARPA projects (Rotorcrafts and else). From the
technological point of view there are the USA then a long gap, then Israel,
then a long gap and then maybe Germany/France (KZO UAV).
>(Finland would be a good partner, since like Poland it
> doesn't have money to waste on over-priced development programs).
We have no money, and no technology. Moreover we would ever need maybe 10 or
15 Predators. It is a waste to put a lot of money on a high risk development
to built a dozen of airframes.
> iof a guy in New Zealand can build a cruise missile in his garage
> for $5000, this ought to be a sensible proposition.
it wasnt a cruise missile.. it was a "cruise" missile. weapons are not built
like this. I thin there was a good ilustration of this in one of the West
Wing episodes. Dona ask some US Navy officer why they waste 400 bucks for an
ashtray. He breaks one and shows her that US Navy glass ashtrays are design
to break exactly into 4 pieces with no sharp ends. One would not want to
have 100 pieces of a broken regular 5 bucks glass asktray during a life
saving manover during a combat. He got the point I would think.
Cruise missile cost so much because they need to perform reliably everytime.
This guy's "cruise" might have cost 5000 bucks.. but what was it range? how
reliable it was? what was the warhead? what was the fuse? what was the
navigation systems? how was it EMP shielded? How long is its shelf warranty?
What are the redundant systems? Add all of this and you get to the price of
JAASM :)

take care
lekomin inc

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Since you seemed to miss the reasons the first time around you might
> > want to read this.
> <snip>
>
> If I had neighbours like theirs I'd be claiming to be pretty
adequately
> tooled up too. Still doesn't answer the question about where it all
went
> too. You'd think someone who'd have no compunction using such weapons
on his
> own people would eventually use them as a last ditch attempt to save
his own
> regime, if he had them.
>

So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam? How typical, how long
have you been a Liberal? Saddam used the weapons, he declared vast
amounts of them, intelligence services all over the world documented the
tons and tons of material and machines to produce and maintain the WMDs,
and as the article points out, the thorough inspections have only
cleared about 10 or 20 of the 130 known munitions storage areas. How
many aircraft were buried in the desert of Iraq that we only found out
about because locals brought it to our attention. The anthrax stocks
could fit in a few 55 gallon drums which take up less space than one of
those buried MiGs. In addition people and trucks were streaming out of
Iraq into Syria before, during, and just after the war.

Next you'll expect me to prove that were are arguing about the issue.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Franck > wrote in message
...

>
> In fact only the US citizens ignorants like you believe that. I'm
sure it's
> not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG, you're only 5 or 6 with
always the
> same poor discourt
>
> --
> Franck
>

Since you say this assertion of yours is a fact you can document it
can't you? France and Germany were Saddam's largest trading partners
and they were pressuring to end sanctions on Saddam before the US forced
the UN into its last round of "last chances for Saddam". France
announced it would veto the last pre-war US proposed UN resolution
before Iraq rejected it.

France is the enemy of Western civilization. Maybe they are just bitter
at watching their culture and their language become more irrelevant each
day.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

phil hunt > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
>
> Seems to me he was making a point against the death penalty and
> against perceived miscarriages of justice in the USA.
>

Proving that the French would rather align themselves with a convicted
cop-killer or a murdering Iraqi tyrant or Rwandan regime of genocide
when they have a choice. That's what we've been saying for years.
--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[tscottme]

Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point that what threatens the
French
> > and the radical anti-Americans around the world is the eagerness of
> > their young to embrace what the US offers while considering their
local
> > culture as dated.
>
> I think the article came over a bit self-indulgent, but I think
there's some
> truth in what he says, (and what you suggest above.) Though in Europe
at
> least I don't think it's about the young considering their own
cultures as
> dated, but often the American money that comes with the imported
> movies/clothing/music/food ensures that local products aren't able to
> effectively compete. (Consider that the majority of movie theatres in
the UK
> are now owned by Amercan movie distributors, (like WB for example),
it's
> damn hard to get an audience for home grown movies without at least US
> investment in the production. ) In effect, we're increasingly not
given the
> choice of accepting American cultural influence but feel it's being
forced
> upon us. Of course there are plenty of fine US
movies/clothes/music/food,
> but whoever remembers the good things?
>

If the locals didn't flock to the McDonalds or Hollywood movies it
wouldn't matter. Everyone on the losing end of these equations says the
same thing, "our product is better but we are losing due to unfair
competition". Detroit auto makers said the same thing when
lower-priced, higher-quality Japanese cars kicked their butts.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Sierk Melzer]

"tscottme" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Franck > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > In fact only the US citizens ignorants like you believe that. I'm
> sure it's
> > not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG, you're only 5 or 6 with
> always the
> > same poor discourt
> >
> > --
> > Franck
> >
>
> Since you say this assertion of yours is a fact you can document it
> can't you? France and Germany were Saddam's largest trading partners


From the CIA factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Iraq:
Exports:
$13 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Exports - commodities:
crude oil
Exports - partners:
US 60.6%, France 8.5%, Netherlands 7.4%, Italy 5.8% (2001)
Imports:
$7.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Imports - commodities:
food, medicine, manufactures
Imports - partners:
France 19.4%, Australia 14.4%, Italy 10.7%, Germany 9.9% (2001)

[Franck]

Could you speak about this meeting dear world history champion ?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

of course france sold missile 20 years ago, but in the same time US give
chimical weapon to your friend Saddam Hussein. It seems you have a great
selective memory.

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Franck]

>US 60.6%, France 8.5%, Netherlands 7.4%, Italy 5.8% (2001)

great information but i'm not sure red necks could understand them


--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Matt Wiser]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
>
>"phil hunt" > a
>écrit dans le message de news:
...
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:47:37 +0200, Pierre-Henri
>Baras >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"phil hunt" >
>a écrit dans le message de
>news:
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank
>Vaughan
>> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, and the decision by the mayor of
>Paris to name a convicted
>> >> >American cop killer as an honorary citizen
>was what?
>> >>
>> >> Souind bizarre -- do you have details?
>> >
>> >Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made
>Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?)
>an
>> >honorary citizen.
>>
>> Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
>>
>> Seems to me he was making a point against
>the death penalty and
>> against perceived miscarriages of justice
>in the USA.
>
>
>Absolutely, but as someone here said previously,
>we might as well start by
>helping the innocent convicts on death-row.
>Even better, we could focus on
>making our judicial system better than it is
>today.
>The Paris city council is pretty critised since
>the socialist/green
>coalition won the elections 2 years ago.
>Then again, sollciting MAJ isn't like helping
>nazis out of Germany.
>Some people here should try to relax!
>PHB
>
>
And those of us here in the States ask why folks in Europe seem to like
cop-killers. This guy in PA has lost every appeal of his case. Only the fact
that he's some intellectual behind bars blinds people to the fact that until
a proper court overturns the verdict and sentence, he's a convicted cop-killer
who fully deserves the needle. Unfortunately, other options for his execution
are considered cruel and unusual punishment-they should bring Old Sparky
out of retirement or build a new gallows for those on Death Row.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Franck]

could you give me some information about chili genocide made with CIA and US
support ?

Do you want other exemples ?

again a very selective memory

Concerning the cop-killer, it seems that the proof are not evident, not only
for the mator of PAris but also for lot of US citizens. How many innocent
are in your jails or already killed by your great justice
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam? How typical, how long
> have you been a Liberal?

I made no such excuse. It's obvious he certainly did hold weaponised stocks
of those materials in the past, but he used them almost 20 years ago. My
argument is simply that we went to war on the "evidence" of a clear and
present danger from such weaponised materials today. As I said, I can't
imagine a regime that used them without compunction against it's own people
wouldn't use them in even a last ditch attempt to save itself. That's not
apologist, simply logic. As for being Liberal, well I suspect the term
means slightly different things in our different political systems. To me
it's more a compliment than an insult. The alternative to liberalism is
radicalism.

> Saddam used the weapons, he declared vast
> amounts of them, intelligence services all over the world documented the
> tons and tons of material and machines to produce and maintain the WMDs,
> and as the article points out, the thorough inspections have only
> cleared about 10 or 20 of the 130 known munitions storage areas. How
> many aircraft were buried in the desert of Iraq that we only found out
> about because locals brought it to our attention. The anthrax stocks
> could fit in a few 55 gallon drums which take up less space than one of
> those buried MiGs. In addition people and trucks were streaming out of
> Iraq into Syria before, during, and just after the war.

There's no doubt Iraq was attempting to build a substantial NBC capability
some years ago. Whether they exaggerated their own declarations (as I
suggested in the previous msg) to scare neighbouring nations is a view that
is gaining credibility in the US intelligence circles and has been discussed
in the media. Doesn't mean it has to be the only reason as to why nothing's
been found, but until something is found (if it ever will be) it has to be
considered. There's evidence both superpowers during the Cold War also
exaggerated their nuclear arsenals for the same reasons.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
> was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
> years.

Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting
Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his
own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand
castle built upon a swamp!

Si

[Gordon]

>> The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
>> was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
>> years.
>
>Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting
>Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his
>own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand
>castle built upon a swamp!

This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things in
their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting butchered,
well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in the
region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the
pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from Saddam
for years. But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at
our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their current
colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that Saddam
was actively working to either nuke or dust us. With that as a background,
France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The differences
between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to remain.
America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did France.
The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point. France
never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we stopped.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "ArVa" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
> > m...
> > > > Are you seriously denying that there was a French bashing campaign
in
> > > > the US?
> > >
> > > Yes. There was not, by any stretch, a campaign to bash the French for
> > > their pathetic actions of this year.
> >
> > Call me paranoid,
>
> Okay, you're paranoid.
>
> Glad that's settled.

Great post. You're really contributing to the debate here, keep it up.

John

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:13:20 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:47:37 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"phil hunt" > a écrit dans le message de
>news:
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:04:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
>> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
>> >> >American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what?
>> >>
>> >> Souind bizarre -- do you have details?
>> >
>> >Pff. The gay, socialist mayor of Paris made Mumia Adbu Jamal (spelling?)
>an
>> >honorary citizen.
>>
>> Correct spelling is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
>>
>> Seems to me he was making a point against the death penalty and
>> against perceived miscarriages of justice in the USA.
>
>Absolutely, but as someone here said previously, we might as well start by
>helping the innocent convicts on death-row.

My understanding is that some people think he is innocent.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:24:57 -0400, John Keeney > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:
>> >
>> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
>>
>> Your sentence no verb.
>
>"Mentioned."

You're right; I should have said something like:

That sentence no verb that is in its main clause.

>> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
>> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
>> are.
>
>Ah, grammar equates to culture, I hadn't realized that.

Those who are literate are generally more cultured than those who
are not.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc > wrote:
>
>U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
>> >I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are
>> >substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with
>> >Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT.
>>
>> Hmm. I'm not sure this is true? What fighter does Poland currently
>> use? I'm guessing it's the MiG-29, which is better than anything the
>> RAF has (until Typhoon becomes operational) or the elderly
>> Starfighters italy uses.
>
>Well.. the Kosovo war had proven that the type of the plane is secondary in
>importance as long as it carries the AMRAAM. BVR sets the standard in todays
>airtoair. MiG29 (as is su27/30/35) is as everybody knows a very capable
>dogfigter but that is exactly why NATO developed BVR weapons and tactics. I
>think I can prove a point that it is easier to exploit the technological
>advance (avionics, radar, datalinking) in BVR then in dogfight. I may call
>BVR the fight of the avionics whereas dogfight is the fight of the airframe.

That's certainly true, to some extent. I would however point out
that modern aircraft such as Typhoon as designed to be good at
dogfighting, so certainly the people who designed them thought it
was important.

>Currently both the RAF's F3

Eh? What's this? Do you mean the Tornado?

>as well as Luftwaffe's F-4 ICE have the AMRAAM
>capability albeit I am not sure about the mid-course guidance. I am pretty
>sure F3 got this sort of upgrade before Iraqi Freedom, but the Phantoms have
>not. Mid-course guidance is essential in exploiting the capabilities of
>AMRAAM to the full (range, precision, "kill zone"). Secondly for instance
>the Phantoms have no sqawk IFF. That is they can be identified as friendlies
>but they cannot identify others as friendlies. The AWACS/Ground Controler
>must do that for them. I don't really need to explain how important that is
>in BVR?

Indeed.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, tscottme
> writes
>Simon Robbins > wrote in message
...
>> If I had neighbours like theirs I'd be claiming to be pretty
>adequately
>> tooled up too. Still doesn't answer the question about where it all
>went
>> too. You'd think someone who'd have no compunction using such weapons
>on his
>> own people would eventually use them as a last ditch attempt to save
>his own
>> regime, if he had them.
>
>So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam?

Why is asking pertinent questions "making excuses"?

If Saddam had the alleged stockpiles of ready WMEs, available for prompt
use with crews trained in their use, then where are they?

On the other hand, he certainly had threats wanting to invade him and
cast him down. The US and UK, as proven ('cause we did), plus the
Iranians, and he had long-term squabbles ongoing with the Kurds and the
Turks.

Seems eminently sensible to me that he might try a "Look! No provable
WME!" tactic of wounded innocence to his powerful enemies, while darkly
hinting that just because the US can't _prove_ he's got chem-bio doesn't
mean he can't smack any incursion or rebellion with lots of exotic
nastiness.

Sensible tactic, provided his powerful enemies don't call the bluff and
are either unconvinced by the threat or are deterred by it. The problem
comes when the threat is made credible enough, yet doesn't deter.

Still a very serious intel failure that we misread his actual intent and
capabilities so badly, but I do see where it came from.

>How typical, how long
>have you been a Liberal?

In my case, quite a while: my second degree is from University College
London, founded by Jeremy Bentham (and who remains resident in a
hallway).

Of course, that assumes you mean "liberal" in the classical sense. I
don't seem to fit the current US definition at all: ex-military, work
for and with the military now, own my house, believe that governments
should ask nicely for tax money rather than expect it as a right, that
sort of thing.

>Saddam used the weapons,

Fifteen years ago. *Before* losing a war and having serious efforts made
to eliminate them, and before a second 'operation' (Desert Fox was too
carefully well-planned[1] to be a war).

Lots of weapon programs were turned up, turned over and demolished
between 1991 and 2003. I'm still waiting for anyone to find more than
fragments of the "bury this in your garden until this all blows over"
variety to suggest that he had any effective capability this year.

>he declared vast
>amounts of them, intelligence services all over the world documented the
>tons and tons of material and machines to produce and maintain the WMDs,
>and as the article points out, the thorough inspections have only
>cleared about 10 or 20 of the 130 known munitions storage areas.

The trained FDC crews who knew how to use the weapons would be a start,
as would the production facilities and the distribution organisation.
These weapons leave a wide trail if they exist and are fieldable.

> How
>many aircraft were buried in the desert of Iraq that we only found out
>about because locals brought it to our attention.

How many of them will ever fly again? (The answer is the roundest of
numbers, unless you're using "The A-Team" as your guide to military
technology)

>The anthrax stocks
>could fit in a few 55 gallon drums which take up less space than one of
>those buried MiGs.

I seem to remember something like nine thousand cubic metres of missing
growth media, which would fill 44,000 fifty-five gallon drums.

I'd have thought that if Iraq has a few dozen buried aircraft and we can
find them, we can find one or two out of forty-four thousand barrels.

Again, Saddam worked hard to mislead, but UK and US intelligence were
very badly mistaken.

> In addition people and trucks were streaming out of
>Iraq into Syria before, during, and just after the war.

So, a stated aim of the war was to stop proliferation of WMEs, and the
result of the war was to scatter Iraqi WMEs to the four winds beyond any
tracking, control or destruction.

You're saying the war was a failure, then?

>"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
>reporters pulled out.

When did we start to lose the war? I thought we won it convincingly. The
occupation and restoration is proving difficult, but that's a viewpoint
I get from returning military personnel not the news. Besides, the US
sacked the Army CoS who said the occupation would be harder than the
civilian whiz-kids theorised - was Shineski right after all?




[1] Never give the enemy a fair fight. If you can successfully conduct
your operations without a single loss, that doesn't mean you cheated -
it means you used your advantages correctly
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> of course france sold missile 20 years ago, but in the same time US
> give chimical weapon to your friend Saddam Hussein.

False.

But you knew that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> could you give me some information about chili genocide made with CIA
> and US support ?

No, and neither could you, apparently.

Unless you mean Chile.

Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[BUFDRVR]

>1956

I believe you must be refering to the Suez crisis. The Eisenhower
administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
actions. Ike, along with the Soviet Union, introduced a UN resolution calling
for a cease-fire, but when it was vetoed by France and the UK, the matter was
dropped.

Ike honestly believed that the Suez crisis was going to do one of two things;
1.) Destroy what he percived as a chance to re-unite Germany peacefully with
open revolts in both Hungary and Poland and a "receptive" new Premier
(Krushev). 2.) escalate into a global conflict due to the instability in
Eastern Europe and North Africa (Algeria was revolting against French rule and
several other Middle East nations in open turmoil).

Both of those outcomes would have had a direct and significant impact on US
National Security objectives. This is not even close to compareable with French
actions last winter-spring.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So you have no trouble making excuses for Saddam? How typical, how long
> > have you been a Liberal?
>
> I made no such excuse. It's obvious he certainly did hold weaponised stocks
> of those materials in the past, but he used them almost 20 years ago. My
> argument is simply that we went to war on the "evidence" of a clear and
> present danger from such weaponised materials today.

You know, it's funny.

Before the war, the news outlets were complaining about not having "one
single reason" for going to war. Sure, Hussein was a dictator, and he
was working on getting nukes and other WMDs, and he had never followed
the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire, and he supported terrorism in the
Middle East, but we didn't pick "one reason" for the war.

Now, people complain that there was only "one reason" to attack, and
that wasn't enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Franck]

Of course my dear. May be you live on the parallel world but sure we don't
live on the same world

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/12/48877.html

Sure mister DR meet Saddam Hussein only to take a cup of tea and discuss
about the last Scharzy movie

Excuse me for the offense to the honorable Mister Mickey Rumsfeld

another examples :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.h
tm

>The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German
companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including
anthrax; vital ingredients for >chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by
a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

>Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in
a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean
firm, Cardoen, to send >cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave"
attacks.

>A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents,
including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US
companies, under licence from the >commerce department.

sure only for pesticide !!

>Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000)
of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical
warfare.

only for pesticide

-
Franck


www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Franck]

>Unless you mean Chile.
>
>Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
culture

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc > wrote:
>
>U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
>>
>> That's similar to what Finland, Sweden and Norway use, IIRC. There's
>> also a 6x6 vehicle in the same family, the XA. It seems a capable
>> family of vehicles. I particularly like the idea of a dual 120 mm
>> mortar, shown here:
>
>Not exactly. AMV is a completely different vehicle then Patria X-Series.

So why does Patria have two very similar ranges of vehicles?

>>
>> <http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/amv8x8.html>
>
>... as can be seen on the photo you provided :))) Poland will have an IFV
>version with 30mm cannon (ATK MK44, which is a vvvvery good cannon)

I wonder if this will have significant anti-aircraft capabilities,
i.e. the ability to compute an aircraft's future position, and aim
the gun towards it?

>>
>> Then Britain decided it didn't want the Boxer, it wanted something
>> lighter that could be easily transported. So it's now paying over
>> the odds (GBP 400k per vehicle IIRC) for something that's likely to
>> be little better than the land rovers ans Saxons the British army
>> already uses (and are cheaper) or the Humvees the USA uses (and are
>> also cheaper).
>
>those are different systems. UK is in big mess because:
>1) TRACER program got cancelled in the US, and the future british scout
>vehicle was to be based on this
>2) BOXER is really crap - to heavy, to expensive, built for future with
>todays technology

I agree, it is rather big. An IFV or APC has to be big enough to
carry an infantry section. I dodn't see any need for it to be igger
than that. If Britain has a requirement for a heavier vehicle, for
example to carry a large artillery piece or missile, the Warrior or
Challenger hulls are available.

>3) for liason vehicle they have chosen an italian vehicle!!!!! (an Iveco)

There's a picture of it here:

http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm7.showMessage?topicID =983.topic

I looks to me like an oversized (and over-priced) Land Rover. The
MoD is paying GBP 400k each for these.

>> Britain had some Challenger I tanks, not the latest thing, but
>> still a respectasble tank. Instead of storing them or using them for
>> reserve units, it stupidly gave them away (to Jordan).
>
>well... PT-91s are crap but A tank is better then no tank.

"Crap" is an exaggeration, IMO. They'll be useful as battlefield
line-of-sight artillery, and are bound to be more survivable than an
APC.

>> Spike is longer-ranged than Javelin (4 km v. 2.5 km). Did Poland
>> consider the Russian Kornet (range 5 km)?
>
>In contrary to the official line (Poland loves everybody... bla bla bla)
>Polish forces, and especially the heavy component (MTBs, 150mm artillery,
>SAMs, SPAAGs) will be tuned to face Russia. The light forces might be
>deployable wherever they are needed but the heavy ones are to defend Poland
>from the East. At it will stay that way. History tought as many lessons :)))
>Therefore it is hardly possible to buy russian equipement including the
>Kornet. It is a great antitank weapon but I am pretty sure russian
>Shtora/Arena systems are close to perfect in making them useless (after all
>they would know all the frequencies...). If ever the antitank missiles were
>used, It would be agains Russian MBTs with Shtora/Arena fitted invading
>Poland... I am pretty sure all Kornets would miss their targets.

If the Russians can jam Kornet, then other people can too, making it
of limited use. Kornet uses laser beamriding, so to jam it you'd
have to have a light transmitter transmitting the same frequency the
laser is. If the laser frequency is adjustable, I imagine that would
be difficult to achieve.


>> The UK is currently considering either Javelin or Spike.
>
>go for javelin.

I'd prefer it if it had a longer range. As it is, its range is only
slightly longer than the Milan it is replacing, although it is fire
and forget.

>Russians just
>started (or rather are trying to start) their own project with the same in
>service date as F35.

Is this a new Su-27 variant, a MiG 1.44 variant, or something
entirely new?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Franck]

>sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
>culture

I could understant what you write but i'm sure if I use french language you
can't
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Matt Wiser]

"tscottme" > wrote:
>Franck > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> In fact only the US citizens ignorants like
>you believe that. I'm
>sure it's
>> not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG,
>you're only 5 or 6 with
>always the
>> same poor discourt
>>
>> --
>> Franck
>>
>
>Since you say this assertion of yours is a fact
>you can document it
>can't you? France and Germany were Saddam's
>largest trading partners
>and they were pressuring to end sanctions on
>Saddam before the US forced
>the UN into its last round of "last chances
>for Saddam". France
>announced it would veto the last pre-war US
>proposed UN resolution
>before Iraq rejected it.
>
>France is the enemy of Western civilization.
> Maybe they are just bitter
>at watching their culture and their language
>become more irrelevant each
>day.
>
>--
>
>Scott
>--------
>"Interestingly, we started to lose this war
>only after the embedded
>reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news
>directly from Iraq,
>there was victory and optimism. Now that the
>news is filtered through
>the mainstream media here in America, all we
>hear is death and
>destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
>http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm
>
>
I'll go along with that. They just haven't gotten used to the fact that
they are no longer a colonial empire, major military power, or the fact that
the most popular books, movies, TV, etc. are American. And they know it.
Most of the top-grossers in French theaters are out of Hollywood, and with
Satellte TV, folks can get all the American TV that they want, bypassing
the over-the-air channels.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[phil hunt]

On 17 Oct 2003 21:37:47 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>1956
>
>I believe you must be refering to the Suez crisis.

I am.

>The Eisenhower
>administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
>issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
>actions.

This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
nothing.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Stephen Harding]

Franck wrote:

> >US 60.6%, France 8.5%, Netherlands 7.4%, Italy 5.8% (2001)
>
> great information but i'm not sure red necks could understand them

Don't be too taken with the stats.

The bulk of the US trade was oil, much of it "food for oil" program,
and most of it not consistent over time (past 10 years basically).

It skews the appearance of the relationship...unless you truly believe
Saddam considered the US as his most favored nation in trade.


SMH

[Declan O'Reilly]

phil hunt wrote:


>
> That's certainly true, to some extent. I would however point out
> that modern aircraft such as Typhoon as designed to be good at
> dogfighting, so certainly the people who designed them thought it
> was important.
>
>
>>Currently both the RAF's F3
>
>
> Eh? What's this? Do you mean the Tornado?

I think that has more to do with some legacy holdover thinking from the
cold war, rather than seeing a future need for a dedicated ACM fighter.

Engagement ranges , tend to be smaller when you were designing a fighter
for the European theater, so French designs tended to be high energy
fighters that relied on IR weapons over Radar weapons, just to use an
expample.

Logistics was another reason , some people I was chatting with ,made the
point that had the russians actually rolled west , quite a few of the
nato partners may have burned up their inventory of BVR weapons in the
first day of the conflict , so an airforce may have had to rely on 20 mm
cannons and sidewinders for as long as that lasted.

Lastly , because of the price of the systems , most european airforces
dont get the most advanced american systems , till about halfway through
the service life , so they may have designed the aircraft to be more
agile to compensate for a lack of decent bvr hardware.

Declan O'Reilly

[Declan O'Reilly]

lekomin inc wrote:
> a nice soul searching session ;)
>
> I agree that the Polish contribution to the Iraqi Freedom might seem
> pathetic to many people. But we have send our finest (GROM is the finest of
> the Polish military units). We have no resources to send 10 thousand troops
> neither now nor we will have itin 10 or 20 years. Polish troops went for the
> Iraqi Freedom OP as we wanted to show that we care. In reality US/UK would
> have done the same, that is superb, without Poles. Everybody knows that. But
> in other times, maybe less fortunate for Poland then right now, we might
> need help from countries that don't really need to help. We hope they will
> help for seemingly idiotic reasons, the same as Poland did in Iraq. Freedom
> is not granted and you need to fight for it.
> take care
> lekomin inc
>
>
What is GROM anyways

I know that its english translation is storm , but what exactly is the
unit. Is it a desant unit modeled after old soviet formations , or is it
more like an american ranger unit.

Also what your guys did was outstanding , plus your government for
sending them , it says more to send troops to a combat theater , than
all the words in the UN.

Declan O'Reilly

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >Unless you mean Chile.
> >
> >Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.
>
> sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
> culture

Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc > wrote:
>
>This guy's "cruise" might have cost 5000 bucks.. but what was it range?

He hasn't actually built the thing yet. Details at

<http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Garrison Hilliard]

Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
>be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...

Yeah. Franck... "Barbie" is just an American fashion doll, right?

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:57:57 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>>The Eisenhower
>>administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
>>issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
>>actions.
>
>This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
>nothing.

Try "withdraw" or we'll stop underwriting the loans you are using to buy
votes with.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Simon Robbins]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things
in
> their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting
butchered,
> well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in
the
> region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the
> pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from
Saddam
> for years.

If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and
government circles yet foreign policy at the time dictated a blind eye be
turned as you say because of the "lesser of two evils". But then a lesser
of two evils is still an evil.

> But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at
> our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their
current
> colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that
Saddam
> was actively working to either nuke or dust us.

Despite the fact that he never expressed any intent to attack anyone outside
of the region? He was certainly critical of US government behaviour, seeing
the US's double-dealing in the Iran-Iraq war as a betrayal, but there's
little evidence he was working to create anything beyond a theatre
capability. (Where as we on the other hand actively seek to create
inter-continental weapons capable of threatening and striking those who
oppose our political standpoint. Is it any wonder that nations the world
over want to redress the balance?)

> With that as a background,
> France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The
differences
> between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to
remain.
> America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did
France.
> The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point.
France
> never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we
stopped.

It was only stopped due to political expediency and a shift in allegiances.
America no longer had anything to gain by supporting Saddam, I don't believe
conscience or the welfare of the oppressed citizenship had anything to do
with it. The defence of Kuwait and protection of Saudi Arabia show
un-democratic and despotic regimes continue to be supported in defence of a
greater evil.

Si

[Stephen Harding]

Simon Robbins wrote:

> If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
> of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
> him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and

"Support" is an excessive description of the relationship.

The US was attempting to get along with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.
The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.

So as of spring of this year, the US had tried to befriend Saddam and tried
to contain Saddam. Largely to no effect, or very limited effect.

The US no more "supported" Saddam than just about any other major country
of the world. The difference is, the US stopped while much of the rest of
the industrialized world continued in its business/military relations with
the despot.


SMH

[Franck]

>The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
>attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.

could you explain me the role of US gvt and CIA on the military support of
Iran between 1984 to 1987 (Irangate)

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[guy wastiaux]

what value is an editorial cartoon ? I think it's just made to raise a
question on a subject. I agree it somtimes does have a political
meaning, but I don't think it's its major goal.

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> guy wastiaux > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know what are your references, but they certainly aren't to be
>>trusted. Try Le Monde for example : arguably the best daily available in
>>France, which is center-oriented, the most serious one. Not once, since
>>the beginning of the war and since 9/11 did I read articles that were
>>speaking of the US as the root of all evil on Earth....Now you figure
>
>
> Read the editorials, especially the editorial cartoons.
>
> Some of those were, quite frankly, insane.
>


--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[guy wastiaux]

BUFDRVR wrote:
> Both of those outcomes would have had a direct and significant
impact on US
> National Security objectives. This is not even close to compareable with French
> actions last winter-spring.

First, why the US should prevent other countries for preserving their
interests in the world just to serve their interests ? Seems to you that
UKs & France's interests don't count in this case. I find that quite
surprising. Besides there could have been an interest for the US in
preventing Egypt to take over the canal, as in the UK-French ruled canal
area could have provided some vital space to Israel (which eventually it
took on it's own).

Second : if France really had trade interests with SH, as some people
assert, then why do you blame France for protecting its interests ?
Wouldn't the US have done the same thing ? I think they would have by
any means deemed necessary. Just as happens all the time. Like happened
with the Kyoto pact.

Finally, all of the world is still waiting for the connection between
Iraq & world terrorism to be established. As of this moment, it seems
Iraq didn't pose such a big threat regarding terrorism, as it was
supposed to be. Same goes for WMDs. So what major impact had SH on
national security matters ? The US kept enough troops in the area since
'91 to prevent him from even farting too loud..

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:27:38 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:57:57 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>>The Eisenhower
>>>administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
>>>issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
>>>actions.
>>
>>This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
>>nothing.
>
>Try "withdraw" or we'll stop underwriting the loans you are using to buy
>votes with.

Which amounts to the same thing. I'm glad you agree with me.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[John Mullen]

"Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> >Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
> >be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...
>
> Yeah. Franck... "Barbie" is just an American fashion doll, right?

A spelling flame, particularly applied to someone for whom English isn't
their first language, is *really* a sign you've lost the plot.

John

[Matt Wiser]

Declan O'Reilly > wrote:
>lekomin inc wrote:
>> a nice soul searching session ;)
>>
>> I agree that the Polish contribution to the
>Iraqi Freedom might seem
>> pathetic to many people. But we have send
>our finest (GROM is the finest of
>> the Polish military units). We have no resources
>to send 10 thousand troops
>> neither now nor we will have itin 10 or 20
>years. Polish troops went for the
>> Iraqi Freedom OP as we wanted to show that
>we care. In reality US/UK would
>> have done the same, that is superb, without
>Poles. Everybody knows that. But
>> in other times, maybe less fortunate for Poland
>then right now, we might
>> need help from countries that don't really
>need to help. We hope they will
>> help for seemingly idiotic reasons, the same
>as Poland did in Iraq. Freedom
>> is not granted and you need to fight for it.
>> take care
>> lekomin inc
>>
>>
>What is GROM anyways
>
>I know that its english translation is storm
>, but what exactly is the
>unit. Is it a desant unit modeled after old
>soviet formations , or is it
>more like an american ranger unit.
>
>Also what your guys did was outstanding , plus
>your government for
>sending them , it says more to send troops to
>a combat theater , than
>all the words in the UN.
>
>Declan O'Reilly
>
Didn't the Poles help out the SEALs in seizing the two offshore oil terminals
before they could be blown? I recall news reports about the Poles securing
a platform at one of the terminals and finding the place all wired and ready
to go up. The folks who went must be their SEAL equivalent.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:41:11 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:


>>>This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
>>>nothing.
>>
>>Try "withdraw" or we'll stop underwriting the loans you are using to buy
>>votes with.
>
>Which amounts to the same thing. I'm glad you agree with me.

No, "**** your economy" implies that the money was being used to do
something productive.

Instead the UK blew huge loans on social welfare while places like France
and Germany were using marshall plan aid and loans to develop new and
improved infrastructure.

A price we paid bitterly for in the 70s and early 80s.

greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> >The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
> >attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.
>
> could you explain me the role of US gvt and CIA on the military support of
> Iran between 1984 to 1987 (Irangate)

Congess had acted to usurp Executive Authority WRT South America and the CIA
provided a means to fund covert operations; without vioaling US Law.

[Franck]

>without vioaling US Law.

lol, incredible

Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> "Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Chad Irby > wrote:
> > >
> > >Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
> > >be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...
> >
> > Yeah. Franck... "Barbie" is just an American fashion doll, right?
>
> A spelling flame, particularly applied to someone for whom English isn't
> their first language, is *really* a sign you've lost the plot.

No, a pun on a bad spelling, missed completely by all concerned, is a
sign you've missed the plot.

"Chili" genocide," you know. I'm just shocked that *none* of our
"English speakers" got it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Franck]

Call it as you want, 3000 people killed in this country by Pinochet
governement with support of US governement

ok genocide wasn't the good word but the fact are your country help this
dictator ( september 11st ..1973) and the result was a great democratie
isn't it ?

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> > "Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Chad Irby > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you
should
> > > >be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened
in...
> > >
> > > Yeah. Franck... "Barbie" is just an American fashion doll, right?
> >
> > A spelling flame, particularly applied to someone for whom English isn't
> > their first language, is *really* a sign you've lost the plot.
>
> No, a pun on a bad spelling, missed completely by all concerned, is a
> sign you've missed the plot.
>
> "Chili" genocide," you know. I'm just shocked that *none* of our
> "English speakers" got it.

Oh, I 'got' the 'joke' ok. Just saw it for what it was, a diversion from the
fact you have nothing to contribute and have lost the argument.

John

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> Call it as you want, 3000 people killed in this country by Pinochet
> governement with support of US governement
>
> ok genocide wasn't the good word but the fact are your country help this
> dictator ( september 11st ..1973) and the result was a great democratie
> isn't it ?

It was during the Cold War, and when you have a choice between a
horrible guy on your side versus a horrible guy on the other guy's side,
you have to make some ugly choices... and we did. But no worse (and
usually better) than some of the other "free" countries around the world
at the time. Like the Shah of Iran, who was a nasty *******, but
certainly better than what replaced him. Or just about anyone in South
America.

Luckily, most of the Socialist and Communist countries have collapsed,
and the ones that are left are slowly starting to transition to
capitalism. We're starting to get a wider choice in what we consider
"allies" now, instead of settling for whoever happened to want to trade
with us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> Oh, I 'got' the 'joke' ok. Just saw it for what it was, a diversion from the
> fact you have nothing to contribute and have lost the argument.

As far as getting the joke, you really didn't - or you wouldn't have
called it a "spelling flame" and would have bitched about "bad jokes"
before it was explained to you...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Keeney]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:13:20 +0200, Pierre-Henri Baras >
wrote:
>
> My understanding is that some people think he is innocent.

It is my understanding that large numbers of people think that
UFOs are manned by space aliens, that Elvis is alive or that
72 virgins await them in heaven for dying while killing westerners.

I suggest that "some people think" is poor support.

[BUFDRVR]

>First, why the US should prevent other countries for preserving their
>interests in the world just to serve their interests ?

Because that is just international politics and to be expected. Nations will
have competing interests and denouncing a nation for pursuing their interests
is ridiculous (even though it happens to the US on a daily basis).

>Seems to you that
>UKs & France's interests don't count in this case.

First, Ike took no action to impede UK and French action outside of a UN
resolution. Second this was most definitely a case of competing interests.
Eisenhower believed that the Suez crisis was going to foil a US attempt to
peacefully reunite Germany and could lead to a full scale regional war in the
middle east. Both of these scenarios would have had a significant negative
impact on US national objectives. Obviously both the French and British
government believed the action they were taking was in their national interest
as well. I fully recognize that, I was just showing how the action *did* impact
US national objectives.

>Second : if France really had trade interests with SH, as some people
>assert, then why do you blame France for protecting its interests ?

Well there's, probably, the biggest gripe most Americans have with the French
actions. Most Americans believe the above statement to be true, and if that's
the case that would explain French actions, but France denied having any
current or future trade designs with Iraq.

>Wouldn't the US have done the same thing ?

Absolutely, so are you ready to admit what Chirac has long since denied?

>So what major impact had SH on
>national security matters ?

First, the jury is still out on WMD. I know the French expected it to be
stored in big warehouses with a sign on the door that said; "VX agent", but
that hasn't happened. Second, even if no actual weapons are found, in the days
leading up to OIF, *some* US inteligence sources believed WMD was in existance
in Iraq and there is proof that Hussain was dealing with international
terrorists (Abu Nidal died in Baghdad in early 2002 of a self inflicted gun
wound....7 or 8 of them). While our intel may have been poor (although see
sentence number one, jury is still out), Hussain's government didn't help
themselves out in their book keeping. By the UN's owns counting, their were
tons and tons of chemical agents unaccounted for in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed
they destroyed them, but could provide not records.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Covert]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message >...
> "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> .. .
> > "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> > >
> > > > Do you even *read* your own papers?
> > >
> > > Don't worry for me, I read them!
> > > But I'm still waiting for even the slightest example of french front
> page
> > > articles crying out that "America is Evil", or that "America is the
> ennemy",
> > > or some other dumb thing.
> >
> > Find some similar "front page" articles in the mainstream American
> > press, first.
>
> I'll do that when you find French front pages reading "America is evil!".
> OK? If I can research US papers, you can research french ones, right? They
> all have English versions.
>
>
snip

Pierre-Henri,

If you know something that I don't, please enlighten me. I looked at all the
major french newspaper sites when the Afgan fracas began, and none of them had
an english version available. I went again after reading your message, and
looked at Le Monde, and nothing had changed there. I haven't checked on the
rest again, but if you know of any that actually do have an english version
please let us know. Perhaps that is part of the problem. It is really hard
to get your message out if you won't put it in English

Dave

[Tarver Engineering]

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> >without vioaling US Law.
>
> lol, incredible

Round and round the mullberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel ...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > As far as getting the joke, you really didn't - or you wouldn't have
> > called it a "spelling flame" and would have bitched about "bad jokes"
> > before it was explained to you...
>
> That's 'really' meaning 'according to you, unsupported by any evidence'

Nope. The evidence is that you didn't say anything about the pun until
after I pointed it out.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > As far as getting the joke, you really didn't - or you wouldn't have
> > > called it a "spelling flame" and would have bitched about "bad jokes"
> > > before it was explained to you...
> >
> > That's 'really' meaning 'according to you, unsupported by any evidence'
>
> Nope. The evidence is that you didn't say anything about the pun until
> after I pointed it out.

Riiiight. Of course, I couldn't possibly just have been doing my best to
ignore a crap joke.

> >Unless you mean Chile.
> >
> >Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

And also one in which you manged to avoid answering the point the OP was
making. Which you still haven't done.

John

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message

> > Nope. The evidence is that you didn't say anything about the pun until
> > after I pointed it out.
>
> Riiiight. Of course, I couldn't possibly just have been doing my best to
> ignore a crap joke.

"Ignoring" it by complaining about a spelling flame that wasn't there.

In your own term, "riiiight."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ron]

>"Frank Vaughan" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>>
>> Yes, and the decision by the mayor of Paris to name a convicted
>> American cop killer as an honorary citizen was what???? Just one
>> more magnanimous effort at humanitarianism?
>
>Who is that cop killer?
>

Abu Mumia Jamal

>> **** the French.
>>
>
>We have a pretty good record at doing it without external help, but thanks
>anyway...
>
>ArVa

Finally, at least some humor can be found in the world.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>
> > > Nope. The evidence is that you didn't say anything about the pun
until
> > > after I pointed it out.
> >
> > Riiiight. Of course, I couldn't possibly just have been doing my best to
> > ignore a crap joke.
>
> "Ignoring" it by complaining about a spelling flame that wasn't there.
>
> In your own term, "riiiight."


> >Unless you mean Chile.
> >
> >Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

And also one in which you managed to avoid answering the point the OP was
making. Which you still haven't done.

John

[John Keeney]

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> >It is my understanding that large numbers of people think that
> >UFOs are manned by space aliens, that Elvis is alive or that
> >72 virgins await them in heaven for dying while killing westerners.
>
> not the same thing, in this case, it's based on proof, and fact

Hmm, you mean like a court of law?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message

> > >Unless you mean Chile.
> > >
> > >Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.
>
> And also one in which you managed to avoid answering the point the OP was
> making. Which you still haven't done.

....because the original poster went back and agreed that "genocide" was
the wrong term...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[lekomin inc]

Uzytkownik "Declan O'Reilly" > napisal w wiadomosci
> What is GROM anyways
>
> I know that its english translation is storm , but what exactly is the
> unit. Is it a desant unit modeled after old soviet formations , or is it
> more like an american ranger unit.
Well, there are 2 equally probable stories about the GROM name.. one, is
that it is derived from the name GROMoslaw Czempinski. This is a Polish
Military Inteligence guy that brought out CIA operatives form Iraq in 1991.
As a thank-you-very-much gesture the USA bankrolled the creation of GROM.
The second version is that GROM is an abbreviation from Grupa Reagowania
Operacyjno Mobilnego (something like Operations and Mobility Reaction
Group). This does not make any sense both in Polish and in English language.
I think that the first version is true.

Secondly, GROM is a SAS, DELTA type of unit. That is long range recce, with
a dedicated counter terrorist capability. AFAIK it is divided along the SAS
lines in boat, mobility freefall and mountaint troop. We know that in Iraq
the boat troop helped the SEALs to take over some oil infrastructure on the
Persian Gulf and in Umm Qasr. We don't know what the others did. Right now a
GROM detachement is under the command of the Joint Special Forces Command
and are involved with the Task Force, which hunts for Saddam.

I think that GROM has much to learn from the SAS and the US Special Forces.
In this business the experience is the key. Haiti, Yugoslavia, Macedonia and
Iraq (place where GROM operated) earned some of it for the Unit, but much
more is needed.

About the Ranger. I think you can compare Polish and US units as the
following (basic roles on the battlefield):
(Polish=US)
GROM=Delta
1st Commando Regiment, 2nd Recce Regiment=US Special Forces Groups
6th Airborne Brigade, 25th Air Cav Brigade= 101, 82 Airborne Division

I would think that 6th Airborne Brigade can be compared to the US Rangers,
that is much better that the regular airborne infantry and not as good as
Commando Regiment. Rangers in my understanding are very but very good shock
infantry supporting SF units and capable of limited SFtype operations on
their own.

>
> Also what your guys did was outstanding , plus your government for
> sending them , it says more to send troops to a combat theater , than
> all the words in the UN.
thank you ;)
take care
lekomin inc

[Stephen Harding]

Franck wrote:

> >without vioaling US Law.
>
> lol, incredible

Actually, I think that's pretty close to it in a nutshell.

Congress was attempting to play a game that would restrict US support
for a right wing (sometimes oppressive) pro-US government (El Salvador)
and attempted undermining of an anti-US government (Nicaragua), while
at the same time, not outright causing, or being seen to cause, the
loss of said pro-US government by efforts of said pro-Soviet/Socialist one.
You know, typical Cold War stuff.

Congress cut off funding for such US efforts, but in such an indecisive way
(the legislation is open to a variety of interpretations because of this
attempt to remain politically non-responsible for anything bad that might
come of [in]action), that Olie North and company devised a way to get funding
independent of Congress, by making a deal with the Iranians for spare parts
for US weaponry (F-14???).

As Olie put it, the concept was "kind of neat".

Now was Reagan involved? Probably (although Reagan haters will paint him
as asleep during policy decisions except when they are dastardly evil, in
which case he's a detail man).

But this was hardly a pro-Iranian turn of US national policy at that time.


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Franck wrote:
>
> > >without vioaling US Law.
> >
> > lol, incredible
>
> Actually, I think that's pretty close to it in a nutshell.

Isreali Generals were already making identical sales to Iran prior to the
CIA intervening for a cycle. It is not as though Iran got anything they
would no0t have gotten otherwise. The Israeli equipments were comming
directly from Pentagon stores, as part of a $3 billion per year Camp David
accord payout.

> Congress was attempting to play a game that would restrict US support
> for a right wing (sometimes oppressive) pro-US government (El Salvador)
> and attempted undermining of an anti-US government (Nicaragua), while
> at the same time, not outright causing, or being seen to cause, the
> loss of said pro-US government by efforts of said pro-Soviet/Socialist
one.
> You know, typical Cold War stuff.

The court's later found Congress had exceeded her authority.

> Congress cut off funding for such US efforts, but in such an indecisive
way
> (the legislation is open to a variety of interpretations because of this
> attempt to remain politically non-responsible for anything bad that might
> come of [in]action), that Olie North and company devised a way to get
funding
> independent of Congress, by making a deal with the Iranians for spare
parts
> for US weaponry (F-14???).

Same deal Israel was already doing.

> As Olie put it, the concept was "kind of neat".
>
> Now was Reagan involved? Probably (although Reagan haters will paint him
> as asleep during policy decisions except when they are dastardly evil, in
> which case he's a detail man).

The CIA was GHWB's baby. If GHWB had not forgotten the US Marshal's Service
is not the CIA, he might have had two terms.

> But this was hardly a pro-Iranian turn of US national policy at that time.

I think Shia killing Shia was US policy in those days.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> In article >, "Tank
> Fixer" > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> If ou want info or example on the French cultural scene, I'd be glad to
> >> help.
> >
> >
> > France has no culture,
>
> Not true.
> A vile calumny.
> France has a living and vibrant culture.
> I mean how else do you explain the holes in Roquefort cheese?
>

I stand corrected......


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >
> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
>
> Your sentence no verb.
>

I know, it was a bland statement..


> >Thank you for you're support.
>
> "Thank you for you are support."??
>

Ohhh grammar flames....



> >It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.
>
> "It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
> freedom."??
>
> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
> are.

Do poofy limp wristed folks from the UK that have nothing better than to
post spelling and grammar flames to usnet.

Appologies to those denizens of the UK who do not fit the above
description...

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:11:35 -0400, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >phil hunt wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:54:40 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >In case no one has mentioned it lately.
> >>
> >> Your sentence no verb.
> >>
> >> >Thank you for you're support.
> >>
> >> "Thank you for you are support."??
> >>
> >> >It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it's freedom.
> >>
> >> "It is too bad it took nearly 50 years for Poland to gain it is
> >> freedom."??
> >>
> >> I wonder how long it'll take for ****wit to learn elementary
> >> grammar. Perhaps ****wit's as cultureless as it thinks the French
> >> are.
> >
> >Quick! Get to your Oxford English Dictionary and look up the definition
> >for the word "ANAL"!
> >
> >It will make you a better person.
>
> I wouldn't have made my comment if the OP hadn't said France has no
> culture. Calling someone cultureless while being aparently unable to
> construct grammatically correct sentences in inviting derision.


Oh my, I didn't know we had a literacy test her on usnet.
How very Alabama of you...


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...

> I am Polish but my opinions about the French are biased. On one hand, we
> "the Polish people" love Napoleon

The nice thing is Napolian wasn't French, he was Corsican...



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

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:26:05 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
>Do poofy limp wristed folks

I note that you are a bigot. Not that I'm surprised.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Declan O'Reilly]

Interspersed


lekomin inc wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Declan O'Reilly" > napisal w wiadomosci
>
>>What is GROM anyways

> Well, there are 2 equally probable stories about the GROM name.. one, is
> that it is derived from the name GROMoslaw Czempinski. This is a Polish
> Military Inteligence guy that brought out CIA operatives form Iraq in 1991.
> As a thank-you-very-much gesture the USA bankrolled the creation of GROM.
> The second version is that GROM is an abbreviation from Grupa Reagowania
> Operacyjno Mobilnego (something like Operations and Mobility Reaction
> Group). This does not make any sense both in Polish and in English language.
> I think that the first version is true.

Who knows ,lol have you seen really any military acronymm that makes sense.




> Secondly, GROM is a SAS, DELTA type of unit. That is long range recce, with
> a dedicated counter terrorist capability. AFAIK it is divided along the SAS
> lines in boat, mobility freefall and mountaint troop. We know that in Iraq
> the boat troop helped the SEALs to take over some oil infrastructure on the
> Persian Gulf and in Umm Qasr. We don't know what the others did. Right now a
> GROM detachement is under the command of the Joint Special Forces Command
> and are involved with the Task Force, which hunts for Saddam.
Okay , so its a modular force probably no larger than a battalion at
largest and squad at minimum depending on what they need to be tasked
for. Just guessing on my part.

> I think that GROM has much to learn from the SAS and the US Special Forces.
> In this business the experience is the key. Haiti, Yugoslavia, Macedonia and
> Iraq (place where GROM operated) earned some of it for the Unit, but much
> more is needed

I think I can remember back in the late 80's , early nineties ,some
terrorist group had hijacked a polish airliner , and landed it in a
foreign country ,and the govn in warsaw said that they had a unit
standing by , should the country need assistance, I would presume that
it was either GRom or a predecessor unit.

As for the experience , that will come with co-operation and time. I
would imagine that there is probably a body of knowledge from ww2 ,
operating with the british commandos by free polish forces.

> About the Ranger. I think you can compare Polish and US units as the
> following (basic roles on the battlefield):
> (Polish=US)
> GROM=Delta
> 1st Commando Regiment, 2nd Recce Regiment=US Special Forces Groups
> 6th Airborne Brigade, 25th Air Cav Brigade= 101, 82 Airborne Division
>
> I would think that 6th Airborne Brigade can be compared to the US Rangers,
> that is much better that the regular airborne infantry and not as good as
> Commando Regiment. Rangers in my understanding are very but very good shock
> infantry supporting SF units and capable of limited SFtype operations on
> their own.

Thanks for the info , usually I use american formations , as its
simpler to keep the numbers in my mind , when comparing unit sizes.


>
>>Also what your guys did was outstanding , plus your government for
>>sending them , it says more to send troops to a combat theater , than
>>all the words in the UN.
>
> thank you ;)
> take care
> lekomin inc
>
>
Any time

Declan O'Reilly

[lekomin inc]

U¿ytkownik "Tank Fixer" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci
> The nice thing is Napolian wasn't French, he was Corsican...
phep.. ;P I almost forgot it ;)
take care
lekomin inc

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:26:05 GMT, Tank Fixer > wrote:
> >
> >Do poofy limp wristed folks
>
> I note that you are a bigot. Not that I'm surprised.


We are all bigots.

Those that deny it are lier's.




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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Mike" > wrote:

> Especially the editorial cartoons you say!!!that's all?

No, that's just the best example. That's why i used the word
"especially" instead of "only."

That's pretty much the point where I lost you.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.