United (State) Kingdom victories ?!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:27 AM
link   
This "TERRORIST" (141?-14??) remenber thou english people how courageous guys they were.

(A, if USA didn"t came in 1945, UK probabluy loosed ?NORMANDY BATTLE (ENGLA?D BATTLE?!) )

FRENCH VICTORIES (With a 17 years maiden as capitain) :

The Deliverance of Orleans
Fall of bastion of Tournelles
Consecration of king CHARLES-X at Rheims

And many, many more battles !


Compeigne or Treason (The only way ENGLISHES found to stop her ?)

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]




posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Surprise, surprise another piss poor post from Nans.
What the hell are you trying to say ?!



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:44 AM
link   
JUST THAT AN IRON MAIDEN OR A SMALL RAIS OR A TALITUBBIES ARE STRONG ENOUGHT TO BEAT US-A$$ SCENE III. The Deliverance of Orleans
SCENE IV. The Bastion of Tournelles
ACT III
SCENE V. The Consecration at Rheims
ACT IV
SCENE VI. Compeigne or Treason
FROM EARTH TO PLUTO (The planet not the TOPOLINO DOG!)

AMERICANS ARE EGOCENTRICS PRETENTIOUS SUCKERS !

IF YOU WAN'T TO ISOLATE YOU FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM !

AMERICANS CANT UNDERSTAND WHY WORLDWIDE HATE U (US$)...

The only thing that interest US are DOLLAR$
Me too !


A SORRY FOR HACKING YOU ENGLISHES !


[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I still don't know what you are trying to say. Try making some sense.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I still don't know what you are trying to say. Try making some sense.


You're not alone. Each time that I try to understand what he want, I've to look for some aspirins.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:30 AM
link   
He's suggesting that the US is full of itself and thinks it can do no wrong, defeat any foe. Hes attempting to demonstrate this by pointing out that Joan of Arc won lots of battles and was only 17 years old.

i.e. he's saying "the US is crap, a 17 year old french girl could do better"

quite why he's saying this I have no idea.
one suspects it has somthing to do with a trapaning accident.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I could understand what he was trying to say, but can't understand what relevance it has.
NANS, THESE ARE EXTREMELEY JUVENILE POSTS.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Its the start of a thread in the chit chat forum.
I don't believe it actually has to have any relevance to anything specific.
We are however making it relevant by contributing to the thread it started...
why don't we both stop.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Yes, a 17 year old maiden led you to victory. And what was her reward? She was burned at the stake.

I suppose France cannot tolerate success!



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I have been under the impression that Nans is a female, am I wrong?

I also find Nans posts difficult to decipher, but the undertones of anti-Americianism always come through loud and clear.

Maybe if Nans tones it down a bit, we can engage in meaningful dialogue. If not, then it's a dead-end street.

All the Best,
Deep



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I think that this was a retaliation post against Learn About Ze Frenchies (far above this post in quality).

XAOS



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU :

HAVE A NICE IRAQ (XXI century VIETNAM) !

WITHOUT :

FROGS EATERS RESISTANT, EX-NATIONAL SOCIALIST , COMMUNISTS , MUSLIMS, CHRISTIA?NS, BUDDHIST, ISRAILIANS and 95% DU MONDE !!!

MALCOM X (You know?) said one day that W.A.S.P. has one fear of a black planet...

Ho sorry, with USA foreign politics I'm NOW a PUBLIC ENEMY !



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Apparently Nans is using the popular conspiracy lunatic technique of USING ALL CAPITALS SO WE GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO WHAT IS POSTED.

In the end, a calm, rational, well-delivered point works best.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 09:33 AM
link   
"HOW MANY $#@^#ing TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?


"

*blink*

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Lupe_101]



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Aw, come on, While everyone knows the French are not my preferred group, Nans does have the right to fire back after Net Chicken's very witty thread.

But be careful, Nans, history shows that if you're a fiery, patriotic citizen/patriot, you'll be burned at the stake!!



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Nans, what happend to old avatar? Bouncy bouncy!

Also, hard to decipher your posts, learn to spell or read dictionary for basic words.(lose, loose, so forth)

The french? Fireworks banned there for after every bang they surrender to a diferent country!!!!! When last time they won a war? Of course, could ask when last time UK won a war.(on their own)

US? War of 1812, Mexican American, Spanish American, all won on own. WWI we came and saved Europe, WWII we came and saved Europe and defeated Japan with little to no help. Korea was stand off, Vietnam first and only war lost, Desert Storm we won with help(we didn't need it) and most recently Afgani war(we had help, didn't need help) Now it seems if UN turns it back on us, we will win war against Iraq.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Nans, don't take any sh1t from the posters here, you keep on posting your stuff.


Its great that people with non english speaking backgrounds try and hold their side of the argument, can't be easy in a scond language.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Wasn't giving him sh*t, just trying to help him so he can help himself. Also, found out about new avatar, MT69 banned, so no need to worry about what he thought.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:37 PM
link   
James, let me correct a couple points of yours, if you don't mind.

Korea wasn't a stand-off militarily, and wasn't meant as a war to have a victory as we previously knew them. Darned thing about working as a U.N. hybrid, things are made to be a balance instead of a victory.

Vietnam was another U.N.-type scene, although in a covert manner. Militarily, the U.S. could have easily won, but that was not suppose to be the outcome. It's a bit complicated, and most Americans don't care nor want to be bothered with the facts, but it really wasn't a loss.

Thanks, James,
TC



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Really? I thought we didn't use full strength cause we feared pissing China off and having to fight 600 million chinese. And with Korea, to me a political standoff. If we would have charged in, guns blazing and "won", we wouldn't have to worry about NK having nukes.

Oh well, thanks for correcting me Thomas.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join