French MP: US bombed French journalists' convoy!

Originally posted by keholmes
T,

Lets see 500,000 for a country of 291mil
Lets see 25000 for a country of 61mil
well then looking at the percentage of population that would make their force about 4 times smaller than it should be�.

What kind of pseudo-logic is this?
I am assuming (since you don't make it at all clear), that you are comparing the proportional contributions of troops of the US and France here.

You declare that based on this comparison, the French contribution was four times smaller than it 'should be'.

That assumes one thing: that they should contribute the same proportion as we did. Where on earth do you get that from? There is no treaty that I am aware of delineating the amount of troops an ally 'should' provide for another nation's offensive plans.

Have you compared France's proportional military budget to the US'?
Have you compared the proportional contributions of any other of the participants in the first Gulf offensive, to know that France's was so poor?

The answer to both is no, otherwise you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Your irrational bile against France is revolting, and for those who see through your pseudo arguments as easily as I do, it paints you in a very ugly light indeed. The irrational need to denigrate an entire nation, when not in jest, is something I think people should seek professional help for.

U.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by upuaut]

Thats what happens when you put journalists in the middle of a war. They want to do it fine, but they have to live with the consequenses that they are not on the priority list when the mission is involved.

Originally posted by keholmes
However it is pretty ironic that you would think that the French would punctuate their collective rage against the removal of their favorite fascist dictator...

Favorite fascist dictator?
I don't know a single French person who likes Saddam Hussein, and having lived there for a total of almost 12 years, I know A LOT of French people.

As for the favoring of Saddam Hussein, history would have you cite the US as favoring him before you cited the French.

I really am forced to conclude you don't know what you are talking about.

U.

U,

As for the logic, sorry I expected that the reader could do the math themselves, you obviously couldn�t point taken�and if it wasn�t so clear why did you seem to have gotten it fairly well oh I know your enlightened sorry high-ness�.as for the logic there was a post about how the French have stood so strong and have participated so thoroughly and I was pointing out that; first, the troop numbers are weak. Second, a high percentage of the small by comparison force was support troops, further diminishing the contribution�.and as they believe that everybody else should join in to protect them, the least they can do is show up when they do agree to come. And I never said anything about a treaty we would have to give up to much to get one of those. As for proportionality with regard to other forces from other nations�.again I left it to the reader to do the math�..whoops.

As for this history test, why would Jacques nickname by the french people be jaques iraq if he was so disinterested as you soooooo knowingly claim�.. oh I get it, that doesn�t support your agenda so you will ignore it, so I guess if you�ll ignore whatever comes your way then your right, i think�..oh, I give you win, I guess the only bright spot for humiliated me is the comet will soon be here.


[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
first, the troop numbers are weak. Second, a high percentage of the small by comparison force was support troops, further diminishing the contribution�.and as they believe that everybody else should join in to protect them, the least they can do is show up when they do agree to come. [edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

You're backsliding, son. First you say France is a treasonous enemy, now you are forced to concede they have helped the US militarily. Come on, grow a spine before reality really takes control of your brain. You don't want to end up eating CHEESE and drinking WINE and FRENCH KISSING girls, now do you?

Originally posted by keholmes
U,

As for the logic, sorry I expected that the reader could do the math themselves, you obviously couldn�t point taken�and if it wasn�t so clear why did you seem to have gotten it fairly well oh I know your enlightened sorry high-ness�

The flaw in your logic does not involve the proportional math you wanted people to do. I spelled it out to you once very clearly, and I'm not prepared to do it again. Just reread my passage on the fact that you have absolutely no grounds by which to judge the proportional contribution as small.

And I never said anything about a treaty we would have to give up to much to get one of those.

No, you said nothing about a treaty, but you behaved as if there was some sort of convention by which to judge how much a nation should contribute to another nations offensive. Can you acknowledge this, or do you want to dodge the point for a few more posts?

As for proportionality with regard to other forces from other nations�.again I left it to the reader to do the math�..whoops.

Umm, to do the math, we would have to have the figures. If you made them available to us, I'm sorry but I missed them.
Since you are trying to make a point about France's contribution being substandard, I think you will agree it is your role, not your reader's, to provide supporting figures showing that most other countries contributed more. This should go without saying: how tiresome that I should have to ask you for this after putting up with your fanciful posturing suggesting your readers aren't doing the math.

As for this history test, why would Jacques nickname by the french people be jaques iraq if he was so disinterested as you soooooo knowingly claim�..

Where did I claim this (knowingly or otherwise)? I have no interest in debating with someone who puts words in my mouth so blatantly.

It should be easy for you to grasp: I simply said that if you are going to mention Saddam Hussein being someone's favourite, historically, you would have to mention the US before you mentioned France. I said it just as clearly the first time, but maybe twice is a charm with you... Here's to wishful thinking.

U.



[edit on 5-10-2004 by upuaut]

Originally posted by keholmes
well I guess as a foreigner your entitled to your doubt so here is from the foremost Merriam-Websters�.nice cherry picked site though.

Main Entry: na�tion�al�ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational

guess you told me huh..

I usually use Merriam Webster above others but for a word of such complexity I considered to be more specific than a short definition from Webster. If you dared to read you know that natiolism is defined quite often with different aspects. The word didn't originate from the USA, you might not know that there is something out and before the States.

And like I could give a crap what the united nations defines something as��are they a collection of nations or a English dictionary? Props on the cherry picked material though.

Depends on what we are talking about. The word house for sure doesn't belong into UN hands or into the hands of any organization but specific words especially when they are related to laws, trade etc are specified by correspondent organizations. That you failed or better ignored to realise this, made me wonder who is fitting something to his own agenda.

Do yourself a favour and read up the Geneva Convention and additionally look up the origin of several words especially related to forms of government and politics. Most of them do have more meaning than you know.

When you need to define a German word do you run like a good little lefty to the UN for the definition or do you pick up a GERMAN dictionary?

I Google for it any make my mind up about several definitions including those in other languages. Unlike an American I speak more than one language and consider myself open-minded enough to value more than one source in my native language. Good try boy, but you are comparing the average American behaviour with European behaviour.

All right propaganoose I give, you are the straightest 360 degree line I�ve seen. You win, that propaganda rag is the straightest news organization when compared to M Moore....there you happy.

Just for the record, in the future when you pass over respected news organizations to post from the propaganda rag, I will suspect the same thing that happened here�.cherry picking a report that phrases things to a specific agenda.

This ought to be funny or did you realise that all you told me above was just the last attempt to make you look good in this discussion? Your answer was the easiest one you could choose. Sure, you do look good from your perspective. Congratulations.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by shoo]

Ahh tiabunsuu,

I might be backsliding�.but your slipping. The only person here to have posted �france is a treasonous enemy� is you. As for not acknowledging that they have helped us�help is kind of a strong word�unless you mean in the way a jock strap helps a weightlifter�.then I could agree that they have been helpful�.what I have been driving at all along is that the very small contribution that they have made, has been blown way out of all proportion by propagandista sucessors to kyltus

so, still having trouble with those troop numbers from somal?


U,

Talking about putting words in someone�s mouth you think up a whole argument for me and then piss and moan like a B when I answer�.are you bout time with a different user name? and the flaw in your lack of logic would be that France asked us to go to Somalia; so that would not be our offensive plans but theirs, and that would also only be true if someone lacked the mental capacity to realize that Somalia wasn�t an offensive action�..as you do I�ll let ya slide. As for the no grounds argument�what kind of a moe are you�..I have as much right to judge their input, as you have to judge mine�so take you holier than thou attitude and place it somewhere; if you need any suggestions just ask�I�ve got one, and there are people who will help for a set fee. How�s that for a point?

originally posted by dimwit
Umm, to do the math, we would have to have the figures. If you made them available to us, I'm sorry but I missed them.

uh, you quoted them in your last post, wow good thing that comet is coming soon. Or would you like to do a some more fanciful posturing?

Originally posted by upuaut
Where did I claim this (knowingly or otherwise)?

as for your knowledge of french history, sorry that I assumed you knew anything of French recent history�.I was led to this by your self-important declaration about all of the time you�ve spent in France and how many of the French you know etc� as he was being called that about the same time frame that you are talking about�..I assumed you knew something, sorry point taken you know nothing of recent French history�don�t worry it�s marked and noted�.as for your mention of US first�why? oh sorry forgot your enlightened and don�t need to prove anything�.hmmm I don�t remember a US president with the nickname '*name here* Iraq'�..guess that was just an oversight�.let�s see the French winking all the time, sell Iraq nuclear material�.hmmm�who brokered the deal�.wouldn�t be that Jacques Iraq fellow would it?


Shoo,

Interesting, so normally you use Merriam-websters��didn�t fit your agenda here, so out the door it goes, point taken and then accuse others of choosing their material.....what color is the sky in your world? Almost enough said�..when I look for the definition of an English word I generally don�t look it up in other language dictionaries, while you�re free to do so, the nuances in the English language make that equivalent to spin.

This ought to be funny or did you realise that all you told me above was just the last attempt to make you look good in this discussion? Your answer was the easiest one you could choose. Sure, you do look good from your perspective. Congratulations.

Huh? Are you talking about me finding the same definition in two dictionaries that I quoted and two others I did not, and you finding a definition from the UN��..wow, as I said before quoting an organization about to join the league of nations on the dust bin of history and then crowing about it�.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

Keholmes,

I knew there was something you didn't make clear in your post: you were talking about contributions to Somalia!
I was talking about contributions to the first Gulf offensive (as I made clear in my posts).

The flaw in your logic for condemning France remains, but you should disregard anything I said specifically about the Gulf because, surprise surprise, it probably doesn't apply to Somalia.

U.

u,

nice dance, way to change the argument after positions are submitted, props. as the discussion was french support as a whole in recent times...sure if you narrow it down to oct 6th 19xx, then yes they were very supportive on that day....congrats you won i submit to your enlightenedness

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by upuaut
Where did I claim this (knowingly or otherwise)?

as for your knowledge of french history, sorry that I assumed you knew anything of French recent history�.I was led to this by your self-important declaration about all of the time you�ve spent in France and how many of the French you know etc� as he was being called that about the same time frame that you are talking about�..I assumed you knew something, sorry point taken you know nothing of recent French history�don�t worry it�s marked and noted�.as for your mention of US first�why? oh sorry forgot your enlightened and don�t need to prove anything�.hmmm I don�t remember a US president with the nickname '*name here* Iraq'�..guess that was just an oversight�.let�s see the French winking all the time, sell Iraq nuclear material�.hmmm�who brokered the deal�.wouldn�t be that Jacques Iraq fellow would it?

What is so self-important about telling you why I am qualified to know that Saddam Hussein is not popular in France? You are one of the least pleasant people to hold a discussion with, drumming up specious ways to try to denigrate your fellow debators in this way.

You have completely lost sight of what this was about: you said I claimed knowingly that Chirac was disinterested in his policies towards Iraq. I simply told you that I never claimed such a thing. How are you extrapolating from that that I know nothing of recent French history? The confusion you are introducing into this discussion is really getting in the way of reaching any sort of understanding, not to mention your attitude. You are beginning to remind me of a certain Grady something-or-other.

U.

Originally posted by keholmes

nice dance, way to change the argument after positions are submitted, props. as the discussion was french support as a whole in recent times...sure if you narrow it down to oct 6th 19xx, then yes they were very supportive on that day....congrats you won i submit to your enlightenedness

[edit on 5-10-2004 by keholmes]

I don't know what you are talking about, and I am losing hope that you are even able to hold a focused conversation without flying off the handle like this.
Enlightenedness is not even a word, as far as I can tell: I don't like people sarcastically diverting from the topic, but if you have to do it, please do so with accepted language.

You know very well I was not trying to change arguments: if you reread my posts, you will see that I was sincerely under the impression we were talking about the first Gulf intervention in terms of troop contributions. Now you tell me you were referring to Somalia. Fine. You should have made that clearer in your post. Trying to turn this into me switching arguments is ridiculous and puerile.

U.

U,

Your arguments are pretty funny�..you get all kinds of upset that I supposedly put words in your mouth and then manufacture whole arguments for me. And then to top it off accuse me of having said things I didn�t (I asked you a question�I didn�t say you knew)�.then cherry picking parts of a larger argument to respond to, without responding to the whole argument��wow�.as I said; sure if you limit it to some specific event in some very limited time frame then your right, they are our best friends�.

Enlightenedness is not even a word, as far as I can tell: I don't like people sarcastically diverting from the topic, but if you have to do it, please do so with accepted language.

If it was accepted language it wouldn�t be sarcastic�.well, at least you finally got a point.


[edit on 6-10-2004 by keholmes]

u,

the point is that it is not a popularity contest�..do you really think that it matters which countries people like saddam less, besides the fact is that it wasn�t what was being discussed, it�s kind of silly�..the point is that the French government LOVED saddam�.ie. Jacques Iraq. As for qualified, I would think that if you don�t even know the French peoples nickname for the leader of their country�..that would make your �history� more than a little suspect.

google search: jacques iraq 292,000
first entry:
Jacques Iraq aka Jacques Chirac: French Policy Against Ousting Saddam Hussein
in 2003 by T. R. Halvorson, Sidney, Montana. "The first ...

another entry

They point to a quarter of a century of such close relations that Baghdad generously contributed to Chirac's election campaigns and made annual donations to the Gaullist Rassemblement pour La Republique political party, founded by Chirac.

[edit on 6-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
wow�.as I said; sure if you limit it to some specific event in some very limited time frame then your right, they are our best friends�.

Perhaps you didn't pay any attention to the portion I quoted from your post. You should have.

It was the portion concerning the figures of Gulf War one troop contributions.

There is absolutely no reason why I should have to discuss Somalia with you: my comments had nothing to do with Somalia. I've had enough fending off outlandish accusations from the likes of you.

If it was accepted language it wouldn�t be sarcastic�.well, at least you finally got a point.

Oh, so you think that sarcasm lies in the use of goofy words?

U.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by SILVERTHORN
I am french and i understand now why so many people here hate americans.
Your are so stupid man!!!

OOOOooohhh!! You really hurt my little feelings! NOT!

It s behaviors like yours that can trigger increase of violence
i am just happy to know that u are not AMERICA but only one stupid american people

I hope you don't think I care what you think about me, because frankly, I DON'T!

I cannot believe you got warned for this post. And I see that Silverthorn is able to call you stupid and not get one.

WHAT-THE-F-EVER, right?

Originally posted by keholmes
Shoo,

Interesting, so normally you use Merriam-websters��didn�t fit your agenda here, so out the door it goes, point taken and then accuse others of choosing their material.....what color is the sky in your world? Almost enough said�..when I look for the definition of an English word I generally don�t look it up in other language dictionaries, while you�re free to do so, the nuances in the English language make that equivalent to spin.

Can't believe you posted this. Completly ignores most of my post.
You know the origin of the word nationlism?
How arrogant are you to think only an english dictionary could define it how it is?
Shame on you!

I dared to find the most specific definition and you stick to your Merriam definition like it's the holy bible. Read my statement again and try to understand it. Not every word you know actually was invented and defined by Merriam Webster! *shock*

Originally posted by keholmes
u,

the point is that it is not a popularity contest�..do you really think that it matters which countries people like saddam less, besides the fact is that it wasn�t what was being discussed, it�s kind of silly�..the point is that the French government LOVED saddam�.ie. Jacques Iraq.

Look at this French asshole kissing up to Saddam back in the 80s, promising more dual-purpose chemicals to drop on the Iranians. Man I hate people who kiss up to Saddam Hussein.

tai,

So FDR in your opinion FDR was a despicable reject? Would you rather have sided with USSR and Khomeini? And the point was long before that picture and long after that picture Jacques Iraq was a buddy.

Originally posted by keholmes
And the point was long before that picture and long after that picture Jacques Iraq was a buddy.

Point taken, however an American trying to fuel his hate for the French with accusations of helping Saddam Hussein is still truly a case of throwing rocks in glass house.

At least the French can be praised for their consistent will to do business with Saddam, while America decided to betray their good relationship with him.

Furthermore, as far as the power to topple regimes go, France is quickly eclipsed by the US: it follows that Saddam's long and healthy rule, during which he committed so many abject acts, owes more to the US than it does to France.

Finally, and this has been pointed out to you before with no visible effect: it is moronic to try to justify the dislike of an entire country by citing characteristics of their leader, especially when the citizens of that country despise him too.

Do I have any hope you will take this on board? Not really.

U

[edit on 7-10-2004 by upuaut]