NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder if this is really aimed at Iran. Hard to tell. Would this be a French nuclear response to a nuclear terrorist event?

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.255415368&par=0

Paris, 20 Jan. (AKI) - There have been mixed reactions to president Jacques Chirac's recent warning that France would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state or state-supported terrorist group that launched a terrorist attacks against it. Former prime minister and presidential hopeful, Laurent Fabius, said "he did not deeply disagree" with Chirac's comments. But former culture minister, Jacques Lang, baulked at the excessive cost of France's independent nuclear deterrent, and Communist MPs, peace and anti-nuclear movements also objected.

Hmm. Could France have a backbone after all? Inquiring minds want to know!

Meh, it's just posturing and also a move to be able to maintain the level of spending that goes into maintaining France's nuclear stockpile.

Le Monde covers it. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-732336@51-732337,0.html)

Also, Germany isn't liking it. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-732894@51-732337,0.html)

I. If you had studied France for a longer period of time, you'd be aware that the French population has a VERY tough spine when it comes to taking care of their own interests.

II. But... you can't expect them to be shoved into upholding the interests of other countries.

III. For I would be inconstitent with II.

Meh, it's just posturing and also a move to be able to maintain the level of spending that goes into maintaining France's nuclear stockpile.

Le Monde covers it. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-732336@51-732337,0.html)

Also, Germany isn't liking it. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-732894@51-732337,0.html)
Germany should like, totally invade them. I bet it'll work out better this time. Third time's a charm, right?

Hmm. Could France have a backbone after all? Inquiring minds want to know!

Only minds completely ignorant of French history would inquire in such matters. France has, contrary to what some people in the US seem to think, perhaps because their grasp of history doesn't extend beyond World War II and a misrepresentation of the events leading to the fall of France, very rarely been a pushover.

Germany should like, totally invade them. I bet it'll work out better this time. Third time's a charm, right?

As das tapfere Merkelchen said: Mit euch komm ich nog fertig....

If nothing else, France has always been oddly gung-ho about nukes, there's no question.. they were still setting them off years after the Test Ban Treaty went into effect.. this is one threat from the French that I could envision them sticking to, believe it or not.

Germany should like, totally invade them. I bet it'll work out better this time. Third time's a charm, right?
One would hope that they throw their hands up as usual, instead of pushing the button.

Then again, they were willing to kill unarmed Greenpeace people over a nuclear test issue, so maybe they think that nukes are the way to go if you really have to go to war.

france also used torture to great effect on illegal combattants in the algerian war, they'd get it done and not worry about worldopinion. that is if the world cares at all, looks like nothing ever matters unless it is committed by the us or israel.

Only minds completely ignorant of French history would inquire in such matters. France has, contrary to what some people in the US seem to think, perhaps because their grasp of history doesn't extend beyond World War II and a misrepresentation of the events leading to the fall of France, very rarely been a pushover.
Shhhh! I know, I know. Just trying to stir up some shyte! :D

france also used torture to great effect on illegal combattants in the algerian war, they'd get it done and not worry about worldopinion. that is if the world cares at all, looks like nothing ever matters unless it is committed by the us or israel.

France has suffered tremendous criticism at that, as well as at their nuclear tests in the atolls a decade ago. Just because you may have been too egocentric to hear the criticism, doesn't mean the criticism wasn't there.

I can't decide if the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists(assuming they don't use em first) is very gutsy or very gutless.

Besides, as the London bombings demonstrate, sometimes it's hard to know who to retaliate against.

As das tapfere Merkelchen said: Mit euch komm ich nog fertig....
I'm sorry, my German isn't all that great. Was ist "Mit euch komm ich nog fertig" in english?

Shhhh! I know, I know. Just trying to stir up some shyte! :D

It's not very prudent of you to admit it.

I'm sorry, my German isn't all that great. Was ist "Mit euch komm ich nog fertig" in english?


Colloquially: I'll git yer fecking ass!
(she said that about her domestic detractors )

I like Merkel. That lady is going to ROCK.

I can't decide if the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists(assuming they don't use em first) is very gutsy or very gutless.

Besides, as the London bombings demonstrate, sometimes it's hard to know who to retaliate against.


IMHO that's the easy bit.

Any muslim who isnt frotting at the mouth ( at the terrorists, no less ) that the attacks were an unexcusable attrocity is a ValidMilitaryTarget.
Most specifically including any and all 'but you gotta understand' artists...

Hmm. Could France have a backbone after all? Inquiring minds want to know!

The French have been better in tackling islamists amongst them than say the Brits who are only now catching up on security measures after 7/7.

They were also willing to take on the islam-lobby on the headscarf issue way ahead of other EU countries.

I bet Greenpeace are really scared

Only minds completely ignorant of French history would inquire in such matters. France has, contrary to what some people in the US seem to think, perhaps because their grasp of history doesn't extend beyond World War II and a misrepresentation of the events leading to the fall of France, very rarely been a pushover.

Well, they were rather impotent during the Hundred Years War (until a woman finally got their act together), their Corsican midget-emperor eventually lost and got his ass exiled to some rock in the middle of the ocean, and they did a bang-up job in 1871...

:D

*runs from the Francophones carrying torchs and pitchforks*

Well, they were rather impotent during the Hundred Years War (until a woman finally got their act together), their Corsican midget-emperor eventually lost and got his ass exiled to some rock in the middle of the ocean, and they did a bang-up job in 1871...

:D

*runs from the Francophones carrying torchs and pitchforks*

As I said, ignorance of history and a misrepresentation of events, ignoring complex causalities, with a little bit of, oh, so, stale misogyny. *yawn*

*cocks eyebrow at Lt Cody*
Just another subaltern under labouring under the mistaken assumption that his opinion is a matter of import.
Look lad... we issue policy and orders.
You carry it out.
Understood, LEFtenant?

As I said, ignorance of history and a misrepresentation of events, ignoring complex causalities, with a little bit of, oh, so, stale misogyny. *yawn*

Even you Fass should understand how "serious" (or not) a post is with smilies.

Or should I go :D :D :D :D :D :D :D next time so there's no misunderstanding? :)

are you sure that instead of saying nuclear weapons they didn't say surrender?

The French "theat" reminds me of the neighbor's toy poodle that yaps it's head off at you when you walk by their house. You stop, stomp your foot at it, and yell. The poodle turns tail and runs to hide in the doghouse.

It's not very prudent of you to admit it.


Have Americans ever been prudent when it comes to their relations with other states?!

Have Americans ever been prudent when it comes to their relations with other states?!


Come to think of it.... no.
Neither in word nor deed...

france also used torture to great effect on illegal combattants in the algerian war, they'd get it done and not worry about worldopinion. that is if the world cares at all, looks like nothing ever matters unless it is committed by the us or israel.

Received opinion is that the employment of torture in Algeria was deeply counterproductive: it gained very little information, but strengthened the resolve of those against France.

*runs from the Francophones carrying torchs and pitchforks*

Francophiles, shurely, unless you are scared of the French language.

Francophiles, shurely, unless you are scared of the French language.
Would that make one a Francophonophobe?

Received opinion is that the employment of torture in Algeria was deeply counterproductive: it gained very little information, but strengthened the resolve of those against France.

True, but so does the use of torture in Iraq...

It's not very prudent of you to admit it.
LOL! Well, that's me ... impudent ... uh ... or is that imprudent? :D

The French have been better in tackling islamists amongst them than say the Brits who are only now catching up on security measures after 7/7.

They were also willing to take on the islam-lobby on the headscarf issue way ahead of other EU countries.
That's very true. It's a common misconception that the French are spineless, when time after time the opposite has been true. Successive British governments over the last two or three decades have always sheltered islamists from much deserved retribution in their home countries. Now our chickens have came home to roost. Compare this to France, who have always took at an impressively tough line towards islamists. They always met algerian or islamist protests on the French mainland with a very firm hand. They often sent islamists back to countries where knew knew they could be tortured or executed. They went ahead an banned muslim headscarves from schools. Those are hardly the actions of a spineless country.

Received opinion is that the employment of torture in Algeria was deeply counterproductive: it gained very little information, but strengthened the resolve of those against France.
From what I've heard, torture in Algeria gained the French valuble information which prevented attacks on French targets. It was Paul Aussaresses, a French general during the Algerian War, that said this himself.

LOL! Well, that's me ... impudent ... uh ... or is that imprudent? :D

I would call you all those things, with the addition of "insolent." ;)

Francophiles, shurely, unless you are scared of the French language.

It's true, elision and all of those bloody accents scare me to death, I think it's from a childhood memory...

Chirac is just trying to remind Iran that all their bases are belong to us because he has Teh super combo bomb of death so they better give their oil and stfu.

I have no problem with it.

I would love to see massive Anti-French demonstrations.

Chirac is just trying to remind Iran that all their bases are belong to us because he has Teh super combo bomb of death so they better give their oil and stfu.
Force de frappe, and all that crap...

Force de frappe, and all that crap...

Isn't a frappe a kind of milkshake?

The French fight with milkshakes??? :confused:

Isn't a frappe a kind of milkshake?

The French fight with milkshakes??? :confused:

That's what DeGaulle called it - don't question the French.

Isn't a frappe a kind of milkshake?

The French fight with milkshakes??? :confused:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force%20de%20frappe

"Frappe" means "strike." "Frapper" means "to strike," but also, among other things, "to chill."

The "frappé" you call your milkshake thus actually means "stricken," but is used in the case of the milkshake to mean "chilled or partly frozen." Got it? Good.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force%20de%20frappe

"Frappe" means "strike." "Frapper" means "to strike." The "frappé" you call your milkshake actually means "stricken," but is used in the case of the milkshake to mean "chilled or partly frozen." Got it? Good.

Maybe the milkshake is nuclear. Like a Waring blender full of plutonium - set it to Liquify, press the Start button, and watch out...

Maybe the milkshake is nuclear. Like a Waring blender full of plutonium - set it to Liquify, press the Start button, and watch out...

The pronunciation of "frappe" and "frappé" is very different. Thus your attempt at a joke makes no sense.

The pronunciation of "frappe" and "frappé" is very different. Thus your attempt at a joke makes no sense.
Sorry.. but you never like any of my jokes..

The pronunciation of "frappe" and "frappé" is very different. Thus your attempt at a joke makes no sense.

Indeed it is, but however, it makes perfect sense. You simply don't have the ability to comprehend that sort of humour, it seems.


Anyways....




The French are actually pretty smart when it comes to the Islamists -- America, in my opinion, could learn a few things from them. But no, the AFSOPC crowd won't have anything that might offend the muslims. >.>

Indeed it is, but however, it makes perfect sense. You simply don't have the ability to comprehend that sort of humour, it seems.

Anyways....

The French are actually pretty smart when it comes to the Islamists -- America, in my opinion, could learn a few things from them. But no, the AFSOPC crowd won't have anything that might offend the muslims. >.>

Although many Americans might have held the sentiment of "nuke the Taliban" after 9-11, it was politically incorrect for the US to follow such a path.

It's ok to make those threats if you're French, and to institute programs to make it possible to carry them out. Not ok for the US to make those threats.

See?

Sorry.. but you never like any of my jokes..

Because they just aren't funny. Sorry.

Indeed it is, but however, it makes perfect sense. You simply don't have the ability to comprehend that sort of humour, it seems.

Yeah, it is a life full of disappointments when you expect humorous things to be funny.

It's ok to make those threats if you're French, and to institute programs to make it possible to carry them out. Not ok for the US to make those threats.

You missed my links to severe criticism of France for this?

You missed my links to severe criticism of France for this?
Saw a bit here and there in the press about criticism. But most people on NS here are willing to give France a pass - they say it's only blowing smoke so that they can continue to fund their nuclear weapons program.

Oh yes. And if you're going to give France a pass...

Saw a bit here and there in the press about criticism. But most people on NS here are willing to give France a pass

I've not given it a pass. I've not seen many give it a pass, at all.

they say it's only blowing smoke so that they can continue to fund their nuclear weapons program.

Oh yes. And if you're going to give France a pass...

Wait, so linking to criticism of this is giving it a pass? Uh-huh. Your logic, or rather lack thereof, never does suprise me anymore.

I have no problem with it.

I would love to see massive Anti-French demonstrations.
They are violently demonstrating since 4 days in Ivory Coast in front of the french ambassy. This is nothing new. It's more than 400 years of colonization. From times to time it explodes here and there, but at the end of the day, France has Ze Bomb and nothing change. France and the US are the same. The people of the US are just new to it and they don't get it.

I've not given it a pass. I've not seen many give it a pass, at all.
Wait, so linking to criticism of this is giving it a pass? Uh-huh. Your logic, or rather lack thereof, never does suprise me anymore.

No, saying that it's merely political fluff to boost their nuclear industry IS most certainly giving it a pass.

And I'm sure that if Bush said, "the next time the US is attacked by foreign terrorists, we're going to nuke someone," there would be 100 times as many posts blasting Bush as there have been ANY posts for or against Chirac's policy.

No, saying that it's merely political fluff to boost their nuclear industry IS most certainly giving it a pass.

And I'm sure that if Bush said, "the next time the US is attacked by foreign terrorists, we're going to nuke someone," there would be 100 times as many posts blasting Bush as there have been ANY posts for or against Chirac's policy.
Chirac and Bush have conflicting interests. Anti-Bush US people will use Chirac as a weapon against Bush and in France they use the US as a weapon against Chirac. Both Chirac and Bush are assholes. And for those who don't know, in France, many people call Bush names, but they do the same with Chirac. For the record, he got elected with 19% of the votes (with 40% who abstained).

No, saying that it's merely political fluff to boost their nuclear industry IS most certainly giving it a pass.

No, that's explaining where he's coming from domestically for all those ignorant of French internal politics - very many on the other side of the pond, that is. And notice how that background was immediately followed by a link to criticism? Really, you've not a leg to stand on in this accusation, and you know it. Drop the, oh, so, USian victim complex, please. You, of all people, have over-worn it.

And I'm sure that if Bush said, "the next time the US is attacked by foreign terrorists, we're going to nuke someone," there would be 100 times as many posts blasting Bush as there have been ANY posts for or against Chirac's policy.

It is not my fault USians are myopic when it comes to world news. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that they are.

I can't decide if the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists(assuming they don't use em first) is very gutsy or very gutless.
.

this is my thought also. I always envision nukes as the last resort weapon. When the back is against the wall and you have run out of options. However this may be the case with France in many instances. They can not project power as the US or even the UK can for that matter. So the level of desperation comes alot sooner for the armed forces. Or as other posters pointed out. It is just a political ploy for more nuke funding and chest puffing.

It is not my fault USians are myopic when it comes to world news. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that they are.

I'm talking about the European NS posters here...

I'm talking about the European NS posters here...

I'm European. How many of us have to show up, so that we know next time? And the European criticism in the article wasn't enough for some reason? Could you schedule it a bit better next time, seeing as we're hours ahead of you and it's in the middle of the night at the moment?

this is my thought also. I always envision nukes as the last resort weapon. When the back is against the wall and you have run out of options. However this may be the case with France in many instances. They can not project power as the US or even the UK can for that matter. So the level of desperation comes alot sooner for the armed forces. Or as other posters pointed out. It is just a political ploy for more nuke funding and chest puffing.
It doesn't make sense. You don't have to project power to protect your home, unless you want oil far away from home. And for that matter I wouldn't say France can not project power like the Us or the UK indeed.
Nukes are for negociation. You don't have to use force when you can threaten. It's not about desperation like advertized in your local propaganda machine, but about power and about keeping the third world from getting it.

It doesn't make sense. You don't have to project power to protect your home, unless you want oil far away from home.
And nukes are for negociation. You don't have to use force when you can threaten.
The problem with nuclear weapons is that if you aren't regarded as stomp-down crazy (Kim Jong-il, the Iranian President, etc.) or if your country has never used nuclear weapons, having them and saying you'll use them isn't credible.

In fact, I find it completely incredible that the US would use nuclear weapons as anything but a response to a nuclear attack on US soil. Largely because the last time we used on a predominant civilian target was long before most people on Earth were born, and we haven't repeated it to refresh everyone's memory of how brutal we REALLY can be.

It doesn't make sense. You don't have to project power to protect your home, unless you want oil far away from home.
And nukes are for negociation. You don't have to use force when you can threaten.

Nukes are purely defensive in nature. They are not meant to be used as an offensive weapon. Only time they are meant for offense is when you are the only one in the world with them. Therefore you don't need to worry about a retalitory strike on the homeland.

A good offense is better than the best defense. Of course you have to be able to project power in order to create the best defense. When your enemies know that you can strike them anywhere and anyhow with conventional weapons they think twice before attacking. When a nation is somewhat stymied by it's offensive choices then it becomes weak in it's efforts of a tough defense. Therefore nukes are favored as an open option. Look at Iran, N Korea as examples of lack of offensive projection. They have a mad rush to build the bomb. Why? because they will use it if attacked. A sure sign of a desperate nation.

As far as the oil comment. When supplies are threatened you need to protect them. Especially when the country such as France is so dependent on the middle east for oil. Remember the Suez canal?

The problem with nuclear weapons is that if you aren't regarded as stomp-down crazy (Kim Jong-il, the Iranian President, etc.) or if your country has never used nuclear weapons, having them and saying you'll use them isn't credible.

In fact, I find it completely incredible that the US would use nuclear weapons as anything but a response to a nuclear attack on US soil. Largely because the last time we used on a predominant civilian target was long before most people on Earth were born, and we haven't repeated it to refresh everyone's memory of how brutal we REALLY can be.
Bush IS regarded as stomp-down crazy. The iranian president doesn't sound any less reasonable than Bush.

I dint think that this should be taken to seriously. Chirac just seems to have lost his temper. Do you remember what he said when Iraq was occupied. He said something about britain showing the same lust for power as they did during the hundred years war. He also threatened to use his veto to stop eastern european countries from joining the EU if they supported the invasion. I think that he is just having a bad day.

In any case this is the most stupid reaction to the trouble with Iran that i can think of. If countries like France and USA has nuclear weapons what right do they have to criticise Iran for aquiring their own? You dont stop nuclear weapons from spreading by invading other countries and threaten them with nuclear weapons.

Bush IS regarded as stomp-down crazy. The iranian president doesn't sound any less reasonable than Bush.
Funny, we don't hear any word from Bush about "wiping" any particular nations from the "face of the Earth".

As far as the oil comment. When supplies are threatened you need to protect them. Especially when the country such as France is so dependent on the middle east for oil. Remember the Suez canal?
That's what I said. Remember the algerian war? You know what? France, who is supposed to have lost the war, is still pumping oil from Algeria and they have exclusive contracts. Of course France is dependant on oil, as much as the US. And yes, France will use its nuclear threats to get oil from Iran. What do you think? That Bush is the only imperialist in the world?

I don't SEE a policy change.

The threat to use asymptotical reactions has ALWAYS been implicit in French policy, since De Gaulle's day.

Clarification: it has been a consistent french policy, starting with Couve de Murville, that France's strategic response to a serious attack on French interest is contingent upon damage inflicted on those interests, and not contingent upon the means used to inflict that damage.

Chirac merely restated a position long since known to anyone who reads Le Monde Diplomatique.. a group that coincidentally includes the State Department of just about any country that might be rash enough to sponsor terrorism.

Funny, we don't hear any word from Bush about "wiping" any particular nations from the "face of the Earth".
Oh you are right sorry. Bush is not arab and he is not anti-Israel, therefore he can't be crazy.

Bush IS regarded as stomp-down crazy. The iranian president doesn't sound any less reasonable than Bush.

.... :rolleyes:


I'm sorry, I can't take anything you have said, say, or will say in the future seriously since you said that.

.... :rolleyes:


I'm sorry, I can't take anything you have said, say, or will say in the future seriously since you said that.
What difference does it make? I don't care what you take seriously or not. Go watch Foxnews instead of posting. Your president may be talking to you. Listen carefully to him, he is the president of the USA. Do not listen to anything else, especially not the arabs, they are all mad. Don't ever ask your car if the oil has a blood taste.

What difference does it make? I don't care what you take seriously or not. Go watch Foxnews instead of posting. Your president may be talking to you. Listen carefully to him, he is the president of the USA. Do not listen to anything else, especially not the arabs, they are all mad.

Yes, they are so mad that they are selling oil to us.

Have Americans ever been prudent when it comes to their relations with other states?!
SHUT UP FOREIGNER! ;)

Yes, they are so mad that they are selling oil to us.
They pay the blood price of the war against the commies and when their blood is exhausted, they give oil. They must be outright crazy indeed.

They pay the blood price of the war against the commies and when their blood is exhausted, they give oil. They must be outright crazy indeed.
And they pump it out of the ground faster when we ask...

Being French, I found most of you to be outrageously right about my dear country and beloved president. Indeed Chirac’s reaction was probably aimed at Iran since Iran was responsible for the wave of terrorist attacks in Paris in the mid nineties (Iran, which at that time was on war against Iraq supported by Ronald Reagan government and Saudi Arabia, wasn’t happy with our president providing Saddam Hussein with nuclear technology).

Nonetheless this announcement of our president seemed so overly unjustified (Ben laden hasn’t send us any videos so far that we know of) that everybody here basically thinks our president is just waking up cause next elections will be hold next year and if he’s not elected for a third time (I swear I will vote this time) he’s supposed to go straight in jail for corruption (yes in our country the president is above the law and judges have to wait) though I don’t think he will (Clinton would have liked so much being a French president).

Some people could think Chirac knows better than that but do remember the pacific nuclear tests. Whatever were the reasons of such tests (probably showing the world he had big balls being freshly elected), he ended up secretly sinking a kiwi Greenpeace boat and got caught. This is like one of the endless list of amazingly stupid decisions he has taken during his time as a president that most French people are not even surprised or shocked anymore… we just got used to him like an annoying grand daddy you can’t do anything about cause he’s family.

Now I hardly believe this would be for any budget reasons since people don’t have anything to say about it and don’t really care as long as we do NOT go to war (come on… we’ve lost all the previous ones) and we do NOT use nuclear strike (we do all remember the Chernobyl incident). I believe either of those dramatic decisions would actually lead the French to wake up and really get pissed of (not like those winter riots which were less far impressive than Miami or L.A. usual criminal events but that Fox News felt like describing as a new revolution showing pictures of the Eiffel Tower caught up in flames while at the same time there were like 2 soldiers guarding it and about a hundred Japanese tourists queuing to get on top completely ignorant that Paris was supposed to be burning).

Anyway don’t worry about the guy… we’ll kick him out in a year or so… and probably end up with either a fascist or a communist… then we’ll really be a world threat :D

And buy the way the President of Iran IS crazy because unlike Bush he's not the leader of the most powerful country in the world and says "Israel should be removed from the map" instead of saying "CIA has pictures and proves that I can't show you that Israel helped Ben Laden and is a world threat that I'll deal with easily and quickly to impose peace and democracy by force in the name of God."

What difference does it make? I don't care what you take seriously or not. Go watch Foxnews instead of posting. Your president may be talking to you. Listen carefully to him, he is the president of the USA. Do not listen to anything else, especially not the arabs, they are all mad. Don't ever ask your car if the oil has a blood taste.

I sarcastically expose your complete consumation by your view of conservatives and America-likers, and you reply by throwing off more of your fascade, exposing the fact that all you can do is spew anti-conservative and anti-bush petty insults.

You would compare the President of the United States, someone who you may politically disagree with, and may disagree with his invasion of Iraq (BTW, I am in no way a Bush-supporter), to someone who calls for the Jewish people to be wiped of the face of the earth, for the state of Isreal to be destroyed, and calls America the Great Satan?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396282,00.html

"Jacques Chirac is flexing his muscles," says the financial daily Handelsblatt. "That is actually nothing new for a French politician. After all many of them are plagued by the underlying fear that the 'Grande Nation' is not seen as such, let alone respected, by the rest of the world. Until now such attitudes did not need to be taken too seriously." But this latest bout of posturing, says the commentator, is more worrying. "Threatening with nuclear arms is more than simply looking after national pride." The paper finds it hard to believe that Chirac could seriously use the nuclear option as a back-up for failed diplomacy, mainly because many of the countries in question are important sources for oil. "Whoever postures like Chirac, is obviously being counterproductive. And not only when it comes to Iran. Chirac should look to George W. Bush for example, who may like to use a bellicose tone of voice, but still speaks of various options in the fight against terror, rather than bringing the taboo word "nuclear weapon" into the debate."

How exactly is this different though than the US Nuclear First Strike Policy that includes pretty much everyone from Iran to China?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

I sarcastically expose your complete consumation by your view of conservatives and America-likers, and you reply by throwing off more of your fascade, exposing the fact that all you can do is spew anti-conservative and anti-bush petty insults.

You would compare the President of the United States, someone who you may politically disagree with, and may disagree with his invasion of Iraq (BTW, I am in no way a Bush-supporter), to someone who calls for the Jewish people to be wiped of the face of the earth, for the state of Isreal to be destroyed, and calls America the Great Satan?
They are the same. They are both trying to get domestic support and they are both mad. I don't think Bush is any more sane. He wiped out 2 countries during his presidency. I wouldn"t call it any more reasonable than calling for the destruction of Israel. You are just blind because you take any attack on Israel as the most horrible thing that can ever happen. Your country's history and local propaganda is dictating your thinking. Bush isn't arab and didn't ever call for the destruction of Israel, but that doesn't mean he is not outright crazy.

They are the same. They are both trying to get domestic support and they are both mad. I don't think Bush is any more sane. He wiped out 2 countries during his presidency. I wouldn"t call it any more reasonable than calling for the destruction of Israel. You are just blind because you take any attack on Israel as the most horrible thing that can ever happen. Your country's history and local propaganda is dictating your thinking.


And which countries are now wiped out?
BTW: do you like pork better than Bush? I do...

And which countries are now wiped out?
BTW: do you like pork better than Bush? I do...
Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan and Iraq.


Exactly how wiped out are those countries?

This is what wiped out looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Gen_Eisenhower_at_death_camp_report.jpg


This is what Afghanistan looks like now:
http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afghanistan/Kinderszene-Afghanistan.jpg

Exactly how wiped out are those countries?
Ahem...they are state ruins, occupied by foreign forces and largely controlled from the outside.

What exactly do you think "wiped out" would mean in the case of Israel?

And besides, Ahmadinejad has since made many suggestions for how to solve the Israel v Palestine issue, not all of them particularly useful (okay, maybe none of them particularly useful), and none of them seemed to involve any killing.

My favourite was the idea to poll the whole of humanity.

Exactly how wiped out are those countries?
How many stupid questions are you going to ask? What aren't you getting? Doesn't FoxNews broadcast anything about what's happening there?

How many stupid questions are you going to ask? What aren't you getting? Doesn't FoxNews broadcast anything about what's happening there?

I'll repeat the stupid question:

Exactly how wiped out are those countries?

This is what wiped out looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Gen_Eisenhower_at_death_camp_report.jpg

This is what Afghanistan looks like now:
http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afghanistan/Kinderszene-Afghanistan.jpg

And I repeat again:

How exactly wiped out are Afghanistan and Iraq?

And I'll repeat the other Stupid Question as well:
Do you prefer pork over Bush? I know I do..

I'll repeat the stupid question:

Exactly how wiped out are those countries?

This is what wiped out looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...amp_report.jpg


This is what Afghanistan looks like now:
http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afg...fghanistan.jpg

And I repeat again:

How exactly wiped out are Afghanistan and Iraq?
I get 404 Error Page.
Anyway whatever. I think you won't get the point because "them" will always be crazier than "us". From your point of views the crazy guys are only in the third world, they are terrirosts, they look arab or commie and they call Israel names they love allah and they don't eat pork. That's how you define being mad. Bush is not a commie nor an arab therefore he will always sound more reasonable to you. Bush is motivated by oil and profit. To you that is the norm. Killing for oil will always sound more reasonable in your ears.

This is what wiped out looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Gen_Eisenhower_at_death_camp_report.jpg

This is what Afghanistan looks like now:
http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afghanistan/Kinderszene-Afghanistan.jpg
Is that an argument?
Showing random pictures?

You know just as well as I do that I could show you a picture of happy children in Nazi occupied Poland and a picture of some suicide blast in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I get 404 Error Page.
Anyway whatever. I think you won't get the point because "them" will always be crazier than "us". From your point of views the crazy guys are only in the third world, they are terrirosts, they look arab or commie and they call Israel names. That's how you define being mad. Bush is not a commie nor an arab therefore he will always sound more reasonable to you. Bush is motivated by oil and profit. To you that is the norm.

Then try again.
Exactly just how wiped out are Afghanistan ( http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afghanistan/Kinderszene-Afghanistan.jpg )
and Iraq ( http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0302/gallery.world.peace.protest/gallery.iraq.baghdad.ap.jpg ) then?

Is that an argument?
Showing random pictures?

You know just as well as I do that I could show you a picture of happy children in Nazi occupied Poland and a picture of some suicide blast in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Try again: Are those countries wiped out, or are they not?

Only minds completely ignorant of French history would inquire in such matters. France has, contrary to what some people in the US seem to think, perhaps because their grasp of history doesn't extend beyond World War II and a misrepresentation of the events leading to the fall of France, very rarely been a pushover.
Were not talking ancient history. i don't care if life began in france, they are a weak nation ever since the revolution and there is no proof against that.

Then try again.
Exactly just how wiped out are Afghanistan ( http://www.help-ev.de/bildarchiv/Afghanistan/Kinderszene-Afghanistan.jpg )
and Iraq ( http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0302/gallery.world.peace.protest/gallery.iraq.baghdad.ap.jpg ) then?
!!!WARNING!!! Very shocking pictures !!!!
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqichildrenhorror.htm
Now please stop asking stupid questions.

And I'll repeat the other Stupid Question as well:
Do you prefer pork over Bush? I know I do..
Are you saying you prefer penis over vagina? Sounds kinda gay to me man.

Psylos, you better take that link down. I got my nation deleted for doing exactly the same thing, despite warning and all.

It's not worth it.

They are the same. They are both trying to get domestic support and they are both mad. I don't think Bush is any more sane. He wiped out 2 countries during his presidency. I wouldn"t call it any more reasonable than calling for the destruction of Israel. You are just blind because you take any attack on Israel as the most horrible thing that can ever happen. Your country's history and local propaganda is dictating your thinking. Bush isn't arab and didn't ever call for the destruction of Israel, but that doesn't mean he is not outright crazy.


Wiped out? I think not. Invaded? Yes, but the people in Afghanistan are better off than they were under the Taliban. Iraq, however, is a different story...


And to be honest, yes, an attack on Isreal would be one of the worst things that can happen. Sure, there's war in the Middle East, but if the actual Holy Land is in turmoil, you're looking at a potential WWIII. So yes, an attack on ISreal is very, very bad.

And their president is calling for the destruction of Isreal because it's a Jewish state. Bush invaded Iraq because of (supposed) WMDs, because of his oppression, because of his torture, and because he was an unstable dictator with no checks on his power whatsoever. Bush invaded Afghanistan because it was where Al-Quaeda came from. Afghanistan was in no means a SNAFU, and it was undisputed, for the most part, in the international community.

!!!WARNING!!! Very shocking pictures !!!!
site not named cause i dont want to get banned
Now please stop asking stupid questions.
Psylos u have got to be the stupidest person ever to believe that propaganda. First of all the first picture is a fake. Secondly the woman in the truck looks like she is happy so why the fuck would she be happy while taking her kid to the hospital!!!!!! The fact is, you could post a picture of any injured kid in the world and say they got hit with a US bomb but it doesn't make it true.

Were not talking ancient history. i don't care if life began in france, they are a weak nation ever since the revolution and there is no proof against that.
France is a standard western bully with nukes. A "weak nation" who is exploiting the third world to death and threatening them into submission.

Psylos, you better take that link down. I got my nation deleted for doing exactly the same thing, despite warning and all.

It's not worth it.
If only we could delete it from reality...

-snip-
Don't quote it, graphic pictures get people in trouble here. Edit your post, please.

And regardless of whether one picture is real or fake, kids to get hurt in Iraq all the time.

Fact of the matter is that "wiped off the map" was not defined at any point, and there is nothing that suggests that Ahmadinejad may not have meant something completely different to what we think it means, especially because I don't speak a word of Farsi.

When was the last time Bush said the Holocaust was something Europe invented to move the Jews into Palestine?

Ergo, Khatami is crazier then Bush.

BTW, I looked up the definition of "wiped out":

wiped out

adj 1: destroyed completely [syn: annihilated, exterminated, wiped out(p)] 2: destroyed financially; "the broken fortunes of the family" [syn: broken, wiped out(p), impoverished]

and last I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan are still on the map and their population still intact. Unless you were simply using hyperbole and your own definition and involve something less then complete annihilation or extermination.

France is a standard western bully with nukes. A "weak nation" who is exploiting the third world to death and threatening them into submission.
I never thought i would be defending France but, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING! FRANCE HAS GOT TO BE THE MOST GOD DAMN RESERVED COUNTRY IN EUROPE AFTER SWITZERLAND!!!!! IF YOU ARE REFERING TO THE MIDDLE EAST AS "THIRD WORLD" THEN ITS THEIR OWN GOD DAMN FAULT FOR SPENDING MONEY ON NUKES AND NOT SOCIAL WELFARE!!!!!!

Psylos, another problem with your argument is that you immediately think that anyone who is not buying into your "argument" is incapable of thinking for themselves and is simply a spewer of "propaganda" found on the OMFGNOEZ!!! FOXNEWS IS T3H EVIL!!1111 channel.

Please give us some credit in that we formed our own conclusions. It'll lead to better debating. I'm guilty of of doing it, too, I'll admit, but insulting one's ability to think is no way to go around debating.

If only we could delete it from reality...
Seriously dude, the mods don't take context into account with this sort of thing.
Here's what happened to me:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450508

XxxMenxxX, tone it down, some, please. Ad hominem attacks and the caps lock isn't helping your argument, either.

I know I'm not the most model person to be doing this, but I'm in a strangely reserved mood right now, really out of it. Jedi Council kind of calm state of mind. It's fucked up. :confused:

Wiped out? I think not. Invaded? Yes, but the people in Afghanistan are better off than they were under the Taliban. Iraq, however, is a different story...


And to be honest, yes, an attack on Isreal would be one of the worst things that can happen. Sure, there's war in the Middle East, but if the actual Holy Land is in turmoil, you're looking at a potential WWIII. So yes, an attack on ISreal is very, very bad.

And their president is calling for the destruction of Isreal because it's a Jewish state. Bush invaded Iraq because of (supposed) WMDs, because of his oppression, because of his torture, and because he was an unstable dictator with no checks on his power whatsoever. Bush invaded Afghanistan because it was where Al-Quaeda came from. Afghanistan was in no means a SNAFU, and it was undisputed, for the most part, in the international community.
It was about gaz and oil and we all know it.

No, I think these pictures stand as the perfect counterpoint to all the bullshit we keep hearing about 'the feeling of brotherhood' and other inanities spewed from the militaristic assholes who inflicted this pain & misery on their fellow human beings in the first place.

Banned? Psylos should be fucking LIONIZED.

Don't quote it, graphic pictures get people in trouble here. Edit your post, please.

And regardless of whether one picture is real or fake, kids to get hurt in Iraq all the time.

Fact of the matter is that "wiped off the map" was not defined at any point, and there is nothing that suggests that Ahmadinejad may not have meant something completely different to what we think it means, especially because I don't speak a word of Farsi.
IM NOT THE ONE THAT POSTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! SECONDLY MORE KIDS GOT HURT IN THE NUMEROUS SUICIDE CAR BOMBINGS THAN ANY US RAID AND THIRDLY WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WITH A COUNTRY IN TURMOIL!!!

Psylos u have got to be the stupidest person ever to believe that propaganda. First of all the first picture is a fake. Secondly the woman in the truck looks like she is happy so why the fuck would she be happy while taking her kid to the hospital!!!!!! The fact is, you could post a picture of any injured kid in the world and say they got hit with a US bomb but it doesn't make it true.
Sorry I must have read too much commie propaganda. Indeed I checked and US smart bombs don't affect children. The technology involved avoids children and trees. The squirrels are safe as well and the bomb contains daisy seeds so as to make the place look better after the launch.

XxxMenxxX, tone it down, some, please. Ad hominem attacks and the caps lock isn't helping your argument, either.

I know I'm not the most model person to be doing this, but I'm in a strangely reserved mood right now, really out of it. Jedi Council kind of calm state of mind. It's fucked up. :confused:
UNfortunately i can not express the tones of speech in type so caps is the best i got capice?

When was the last time Bush said the Holocaust was something Europe invented to move the Jews into Palestine?

Ergo, Khatami is crazier then Bush.

BTW, I looked up the definition of "wiped out":

and last I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan are still on the map and their population still intact. Unless you were simply using hyperbole and your own definition and involve something less then complete annihilation or extermination.
Yes I was using an hyperbole and the Iranian president was as well. BTW Iraq and Afghanistan are not intact. And I don't agree Khatami and Bush are equal on scale. They are different in their approach but they're both mad.

It was about gaz and oil and we all know it.
Yeah thats why american gas prices dropped suddenly right? Bush isn't a liar and the most of oil belonging to saddams reign is now in the hands of the new government.:headbang:

Yes I was using an hyperbole and the Iranian president was as well. BTW Iraq and Afghanistan are not intact. And I don't agree Khatami and Bush are equal on scale. They are different in their approach but they're both mad.
Neither of them are quite as mad as you psycho

UNfortunately i can not express the tones of speech in type so caps is the best i got capice?

Understandable -- some topics can get me enraged, too -- but having an outright expression of emotion such as the caps lock tends to make you look bad on an online forum -- just letting you know.

And Pylos, it was not all about oil; anyone that looks at all the facts knows this. Could it have been a thought? Of course -- I don't doubt that it was in their mind. But to say it was their only motivator is not true.

Psylos, another problem with your argument is that you immediately think that anyone who is not buying into your "argument" is incapable of thinking for themselves and is simply a spewer of "propaganda" found on the OMFGNOEZ!!! FOXNEWS IS T3H EVIL!!1111 channel.

Please give us some credit in that we formed our own conclusions. It'll lead to better debating. I'm guilty of of doing it, too, I'll admit, but insulting one's ability to think is no way to go around debating.
Hey this is nationstates.
But anyway you are probably right. I should tone down my language. I'd like to have rational debates. I mean I should not use the language of Kathami or Bush.

Yes I was using an hyperbole and the Iranian president was as well. BTW Iraq and Afghanistan are not intact. And I don't agree Khatami and Bush are equal on scale. They are different in their approach but they're both mad.

No, the President was not using a hyperbole -- he and the other Islamofascists want Isreal wiped off the face of the earth -- the people, that is, not the place, as they feel that Jerusalem belongs to them, and that the Jews are vile people, etc, etc.

Bush isn't a liar...
Yeah, right, an honest Politician. And you know that because?

...and the most of oil belonging to saddams reign is now in the hands of the new government.:headbang:
Actually, the "reconstruction deals" (and exploitation rights) went primarily to Halliburton I believe.

Hey this is nationstates.

:D You have a point, there.

But anyway you are probably right. I should tone down my language. I'd like to have rational debates. I mean I should not use the language of Kathami or Bush.

Indeed, but I still don't see where you think Bush is as an outspoken radical as Kathami is. Typically, the anti-Bush people make fun of his inability to speak, not to catch up the masses in an emotional speech.

No, I think these pictures stand as the perfect counterpoint to all the bullshit we keep hearing about 'the feeling of brotherhood' and other inanities spewed from the militaristic assholes who inflicted this pain & misery on their fellow human beings in the first place.

Banned? Psylos should be fucking LIONIZED.
IS LIONIZED BAD?

an honest Politician.
....

You realize that half of hell just froze over and a rift in the space-time continuum opened up simply because you used those two words together? I can see the evil UFOs coming already... :eek:

Yeah, right, an honest Politician. And you know that because?


Actually, the "reconstruction deals" (and exploitation rights) went primarily to Halliburton I believe.
Actually that is a piece of liberal propoganda used in the election process to undermine cheney and in addition to being skewed Halliburton never took any oil out of the country which was proved by 2004 profit statistics. SO QUITE FRANKLY, SHOVE IT!!!

IS LIONIZED BAD?
The dictionary is your friend.

I am not a dictionary.

....

You realize that half of hell just froze over and a rift in the space-time continuum opened up simply because you used those two words together? I can see the evil UFOs coming already... :eek:
Most Polititians are honest, they use minions to lie for them.

li·on·ize tr.v. li·on·ized, li·on·iz·ing, li·on·iz·es

To look on or treat (a person) as a celebrity.

The dictionary is your friend.

I am not a dictionary.
What are you then gay? Answer my god damn question!:headbang:

Most Polititians are honest, they use minions to lie for them.

You have much faith in the failed system, I'm surprised. I used to have faith, but I don't anymore. They're too worried about covering their own political behinds than actually having the will of the people. All of them.

What are you then gay? Answer my god damn question!:headbang:

I posted the definition a few posts before yours.

Yeah, right, an honest Politician. And you know that because?


Actually, the "reconstruction deals" (and exploitation rights) went primarily to Halliburton I believe.
Way to be like CNN and twist the words right out of my mouth.

I posted the definition a few posts before yours.
SWEEEEEET THX

The French have been better in tackling islamists amongst them than say the Brits who are only now catching up on security measures after 7/7.

They were also willing to take on the islam-lobby on the headscarf issue way ahead of other EU countries.

But by doing that, you risk marginalising a community - resulting in the riots we saw accross France.

The same situation is happening in the US - the 'force secularisation' has only resulted in the rise of the religious right, the rise of the number of people who have suddenly 'found god'.

What do we have now? a border line theocracy whose focus is to whine about so-called 'moral issues' that actually concerntrating on the IMPORTANT things like, health, education, socialwelfare, job creation, employment conditions and protection, law and order, and maybe to a lesser extent, foreign policy.

But by doing that, you risk marginalising a community - resulting in the riots we saw accross France.

The same situation is happening in the US - the 'force secularisation' has only resulted in the rise of the religious right, the rise of the number of people who have suddenly 'found god'.

What do we have now? a border line theocracy whose focus is to whine about so-called 'moral issues' that actually concerntrating on the IMPORTANT things like, health, education, socialwelfare, job creation, employment conditions and protection, law and order, and maybe to a lesser extent, foreign policy.
I lost you, which country is the borderline theocracy cause last i checked the US had something called the separation of church and state and the words "under god" are being threatened to be removed from the pledge of allegiance.
:confused:

Way to be like CNN and twist the words right out of my mouth.
You said "Bush is not a liar"...implying he is an honest politician, right?

Actually that is a piece of liberal propoganda used in the election process to undermine cheney and in addition to being skewed Halliburton never took any oil out of the country which was proved by 2004 profit statistics. SO QUITE FRANKLY, SHOVE IT!!!
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
I can see, you need some work. Let's start here:
What Liberalism means (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)

Then go on to the fact of the matter.
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/news/0104.shtml
There you will find the total money made in Iraq by Halliburton, as well as other companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11240
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,911943,00.html
Another three articles regarding the topic, by the BBC, the Guardian and Associated Press.

And then go back to the myth that France and Russia were against the war because of oil, find those contracts of the relevant firms, and look who got them after the war. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

You said "Bush is not a liar"...implying he is an honest politician, right?


http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
I can see, you need some work. Let's start here:
What Liberalism means (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)

Then go on to the fact of the matter.
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/news/0104.shtml
There you will find the total money made in Iraq by Halliburton, as well as other companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11240
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,911943,00.html
Another three articles regarding the topic, by the BBC, the Guardian and Associated Press.

And then go back to the myth that France and Russia were against the war because of oil, find those contracts of the relevant firms, and look who got them after the war. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
First of all DICKWAD i said liberal, referring to the Democratic Party, secondly the website you posted was nothing but a convoluted mess, and thirdly IRAG REVENUE WATCH obviously is propaganda or else why would it exist. SO **** OFF!!!!!!
:sniper:

I lost you, which country is the borderline theocracy cause last i checked the US had something called the separation of church and state and the words "under god" are being threatened to be removed from the pledge of allegiance.
:confused:

Take gay marriage, for example; teaching abstiance in school based on dogmatic theology rather than actual proof to back up their claims.

Every policy so far by the GWB camp has been based on purely theologically driven dogma rather than it being based on playing a pragmatic middle road of delivery the best result to its citizens.

First of all DICKWAD i said liberal, referring to the Democratic Party...
Which is incorrect, as I pointed out. "Liberal" has nothing to do with the US Democrats, and everything to do with civil- and economic liberties.

...secondly the website you posted was nothing but a convoluted mess...
Which one?

...and thirdly IRAG REVENUE WATCH obviously is propaganda or else why would it exist. SO **** OFF!!!!!!
:sniper:
Because at some point someone thought it would be good for people to be able to get that information?
Don't you think people should have the chance to look at who ultimately profits from a war like this? Is the support of democratic choice propaganda now?

Also notice how I haven't used a single sniping smilie, nor started flaming.

IM NOT THE ONE THAT POSTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! SECONDLY MORE KIDS GOT HURT IN THE NUMEROUS SUICIDE CAR BOMBINGS THAN ANY US RAID AND THIRDLY WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WITH A COUNTRY IN TURMOIL!!!

Based on what count do you make this claim? It may have escaped your notice, but the Coalition forces haven't considered it worth their time and effort to actually keep a record of civilian casualties.

Take gay marriage, for example; teaching abstiance in school based on dogmatic theology rather than actual proof to back up their claims.

Every policy so far by the GWB camp has been based on purely theologically driven dogma rather than it being based on playing a pragmatic middle road of delivery the best result to its citizens.
What the hell are you talking about abstiance, is the proven best way for teenagers not to get STD's, for fuck's sake its sexually transmitted the best way not to get it is not to have sex. Secondly personal beliefs of GWD can now overcome congress becuase last time i checked, the executive branch didn't make laws.

Based on what count do you make this claim? It may have escaped your notice, but the Coalition forces haven't considered it worth their time and effort to actually keep a record of civilian casualties.
Maybe u should include the casuaties of the terrorist blowing themselves up everyday. Hmmm maybe youd like to go their and ask people who they don't like more, The terrorist or the soldiers.

For the last time liberal can reflect the democratic party's stance, the same way conservative can reflect the republican's party's stance.
But what do you expect from a person who reads a dictionary from 1857.

Maybe u should include the casuaties of the terrorist blowing themselves up everyday. Hmmm maybe youd like to go their and ask people who they don't like more, The terrorist or the soldiers.

Now, that is avoiding the question. On what figures do you base your claim?

Now, that is avoiding the question. On what figures do you base your claim?
On what figures do you base your claim?

On what figures do you base your claim?

And what claim was that?

For the last time liberal can reflect the democratic party's stance, the same way conservative can reflect the republican's party's stance.
Only in America, and only after pundits and opinion-piece writers have made it normal.

Go to Europe for example...what do you find? Parties like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freie_Demokratische_Partei).

Go to Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_%28Japan%29) however, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) or Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia), and you'll find completely different meanings to the terms.

Which brings us to the point from 1857...if everyone makes up whatever definition they want for a term, you have to go back to the roots and use the real original meaning.

Were not talking ancient history. i don't care if life began in france, they are a weak nation ever since the revolution and there is no proof against that.
I think that shows you don't know what you're talking about. Throughout the late 20th century, France has shown strength in the way it stood up political islamism, long before most people in the world had even heard of it. While Britain has only tried to lock the stable door once the horse has bolted, France was always willing to fight dirty. It was France that sent islamist asylum seekers back to countries where they could face torture or execution, something that Britain would never have the backbone to do. It was France that traditionally met muslim rioters with devastating force, the recent riots being an exception to that rule. It was France that banned headscarves in schools. Hardly the actions of a weak nation.

The only reason some Americans get on their high horse about France is that they can't stand the idea of them not being a satellite state. They accuse France of being weak because they won't go to war whenever the sugar daddies in Washington tell them. You don't have to throw bombs around around to be a strong country. Acting independently, without giving in to the demands of bigger and more influential countries is a sign of true strength.

:D You have a point, there.



Indeed, but I still don't see where you think Bush is as an outspoken radical as Kathami is. Typically, the anti-Bush people make fun of his inability to speak, not to catch up the masses in an emotional speech.

Think about it.

The Iranian president talks about how the israelites manipulate world currency, are encroaching upon lands that don't belong to them, and many other claims.

Bush spoke about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, made it sound like he was gearing up to attack us, and many other claims.

Bush speaks about wanting to wipe out the terrorists, hunting them down and killing them, etc.

The Iranian president talks about wiping the israelites off of the map.

The Iranians speak about how America is the great devil.

Bush proclaimed Iran as a part of the axis of evil.

Bush and the Iranian president may speak in different ways, but they are quite similar. They have their enemies. They use hyperbole to garner support for what they wish, to encite the people against enemies. The only difference is really who you support, and who you don't support. Obviously, when you think someone is doing something good, against bad people, you think they are much more sensical than those you dont agree with. You aren't going to call the Iranian president a loon, then talk about how its a good idea to force the israelites off of their lands, and let muslims rightly take back the holy land(Unless you think it should be done in a different way than he wants to, or otherwise).

What the hell are you talking about abstiance, is the proven best way for teenagers not to get STD's, for fuck's sake its sexually transmitted the best way not to get it is not to have sex. Secondly personal beliefs of GWD can now overcome congress becuase last time i checked, the executive branch didn't make laws.

Yeash, and keeping students fucking ignorant about safe sex is a sure way to stop them from having sex <rolls eyes>

Yeah, like teenagers NEVER think about sex until those dirty, firthy and corrupt liberals started making condoms accessible to these teens.

Go to eBay and purchase a fucking clue, maybe then, you might also get a good shag as well.

Oh, and btw, Republicans hold the presidency, majority in the lower and upper house - they can ram through any law they want, without opposition.

!!!WARNING!!! Very shocking pictures !!!!
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqichildrenhorror.htm
Now please stop asking stupid questions.


No, fess up!
Was your statement about Iraq and Afghanistan being wiped out the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth... or are you a liar?

...rather than it being based on playing a pragmatic middle road of delivery the best result to its citizens.

In all honesty, I don't see why the Bush administration -- or the Republican party in general -- should take the middle of the road for anything. The democratic party would never compromise with the Republicans and vote on a "right" - leaning issue, why should the Republicans do the same?

The only reason some Americans get on their high horse about France is that they can't stand the idea of them not being a satellite state. They accuse France of being weak because they won't go to war whenever the sugar daddies in Washington tell them. You don't have to throw bombs around around to be a strong country. Acting independently, without giving in to the demands of bigger and more influential countries is a sign of true strength.
The only countries that act independently are the ones who don't want to get their feet wet. Would you call Switzerland a strong nation. I don't think so. And by the way France is just another conformist, and Great Britain is the one that didn't join the EU in case u forgot.

Oh, and btw, Republicans hold the presidency, majority in the lower and upper house - they can ram through any law they want, without opposition.
HMMM name one fucking bill that shows the presidency leaning toward god in the whole damn administration. Can't? oh well, then shut up and keep eating the propaganda being pumped out of the media these days.

The only countries that act independently are the ones who don't want to get their feet wet. Would you call Switzerland a strong nation. I don't think so. And by the way France is just another conformist, and Great Britain is the one that didn't join the EU in case u forgot.

Hate to break it to you pal, but the UK is in the EU, and has been for the past 33 years.

The only countries that act independently are the ones who don't want to get their feet wet. Would you call Switzerland a strong nation. I don't think so. And by the way France is just another conformist, and Great Britain is the one that didn't join the EU in case u forgot.

Switzerland is a strong country, both politically and militarially. No one in the world could invade switzerland, even if the countries around them allowed troops to pass through into it.

Saying France is a conformist is like saying any country is a conformist. Most countries conform to certain things. The two main ones in the west who don't conform to the general tow of things are the US and France.

And as said, Great Britain is in the EU. They were even president of it for a few years back when, and proceeded to do nothing more than the bare minimum.

HMMM name one fucking bill that shows the presidency leaning toward god in the whole damn administration. Can't? oh well, then shut up and keep eating the propaganda being pumped out of the media these days.

First off, using vulgar language and being rude to other people isn't helping you get your point across.

Bush signed a bill reaffirming the motto "In god we trust" and the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

He has tried to block stem-cell research, his faith-based initiatives were a bit ago but probably still around, and there are more, I just don't have hte time atm to search.

First off, using vulgar language and being rude to other people isn't helping you get your point across.

Bush signed a bill reaffirming the motto "In god we trust" and the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

He has tried to block stem-cell research, his faith-based initiatives were a bit ago but probably still around, and there are more, I just don't have hte time atm to search.
THE REASON THOSE PHRASES WERE KEPT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF THE NATIONS HISTORY AND FUTHERMORE HE APPROVED A BILL FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH LAST I CHECKED SO IT SEEMS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

THE REASON THOSE PHRASES WERE KEPT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF THE NATIONS HISTORY AND FUTHERMORE HE APPROVED A BILL FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH LAST I CHECKED SO IT SEEMS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION
Part of the nation's history since the fifties. That's a real long tradition there.

Oh, and Bush allows stem cell research only on the conditions that if it recieves federal funding it must be limited to a handfull of old, contaminated cell lines. Way to help our nation stay on the cutting edge of science and technology.

XxxMenezxxX or whatever the hell your name is.

Calm. The Fuck. Down.

Writing in caps is irritataing. In a debate do you scream at the opposition? If you do you get kicked out of any civilised debate. Sit back, think about your posts and make them readable.

Doesn't have to be long, just well written enough that I can read it rather than let DCD and the rest do it then work out what you said from their response.

THE REASON THOSE PHRASES WERE KEPT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF THE NATIONS HISTORY AND FUTHERMORE HE APPROVED A BILL FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH LAST I CHECKED SO IT SEEMS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

Those phrases are a part of our history? I suppose, however, being added in the 1950's, they aren't exactly a hallowed part of it, and it should never have been added in the first place. Keeping things that go against the wishes of our founders, that go against the intent of the constitution, thats history I don't like. As much as I hate emotional arguments like these, would you have wanted to keep slavery intact, because it was a part of the american culture and history?

I would like to see where he approved a bill for stem cell research. Last I heard, he was talking about how things like these were bad. I'd love to see some linkage on this.

Ohh, and yes. Calm the fuck down.

Hmm. Could France have a backbone after all? Inquiring minds want to know!
Why don't you check up on what Mr DeGaulle did? That will answer your question quite affirmatively.

Hmm. Could France have a backbone after all? Inquiring minds want to know!
No France does not they are a bunch of sneaky cry babies.

No France does not they are a bunch of sneaky cry babies.

Yeah, go complain about the rainbow warrior some more... jeez.