French decline. So it was not just me.

[DEAD ZONE]

"Having recently emerged battered from national education strikes and months of street demonstrations over reduced retirement benefits, Jacques Chirac's administration is looking on with dismay at media encouragement for right-wing intellectual claims that France is now the weak man of Europe, mired in hypocrisy nationally and internationally, indifferent to popular needs such as care of the aged, and shaken by the aftershocks of vain defiance of the US-led war in Iraq. In short, that France is going down the pan.

It is an argument bolstered by Nicolas Baverez, a historian and free-market evangelist and author of La France qui tombe, who in only 134 pages trots out a thousand historical and contemporary statistics to claim that France is paralysed by 'economic, political, social and intellectual immobility and is plunging towards decline'.

Both pale into insignificance alongside L'Arrogance française, where the journalist authors, Romain Gubert and Emmanuel Saint-Martin, state: 'With our sermons, our empty gestures and our poetic flights, we (the French) have pissed off the planet. Worse: we make them laugh. "

'It's a sickness to which French people are addicted - believing that France must offer the world Light, Law and Liberty; that their leaders are the carriers of a universal message.'

http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4772628-99819,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1061272,00.html
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10315

[weldordave]

Yes, they suck. And they know they suck. Now the trick is to get all of Europe in their suck vortex via the EU. So far, so good. The only obstacle to The Great French Suck Plan is England. They just refuse to suck. All other Europen puppets seem to be in line, though. Face to the wind, Brits. Don't let 'em fool ya like back in the '30's!:clap

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
'It's a sickness to which French people are addicted - believing that France must offer the world Light, Law and Liberty; that their leaders are the carriers of a universal message.'

The French indeed feel that way. Most French see France almost as God's gift to mankind. But they are not unique in this. Americans and Chinese, just to name a few, feel the same way (I know I am generalizing now). The French are not the only ones to think of themselves this way.

[w1che]

Yeah but the difference between the French & we Americans is.... "WE REALLY ARE GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND"... :eek: :smash

[Phreakmeister]

You got me there, w1. How could I disagree with that? :lol :smash

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by w1che
Yeah but the difference between the French & we Americans is.... "WE REALLY ARE GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND"... :eek: :smash http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/ogo.gif

[weldordave]

Well, damn. We ARE (insert your gods name here) gift to mankind. You gots a problem with that, Phreak?! 'Cause if ya do let me introduce to you my little friend.....THE TOMAHAWK!!!:mad
(Phreak, I'm kidding.) Context taken from Dustin Hoffman in that cocaine movie.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by weldordave
Well, damn. We ARE (insert your gods name here) gift to mankind. You gots a problem with that, Phreak?! 'Cause if ya do let me introduce to you my little friend.....THE TOMAHAWK!!!:mad


:lol :lol :lol Can't stop myself :lol :lol :lol

[Serendipity]

What the heck do you expect from France? After all, they have had years of conservative government now. It's ironic that in the last hundred years the most heroic and least self-serving of Frenchmen were communists.

[DEAD ZONE]

France escaped hefty fines today despite flagrantly breaching EU rules on running the single currency.

The let-off from the European Commission triggered fresh attacks on the euro’s credibility, with warnings that the UK could not be expected to join the currency while others were allowed to ignore the rules.

The Commission acknowledges that the French government is failing to keep its economy in line with EU requirements.

But this afternoon in Brussels it ducked the embarrassing option of punishing a country which says its domestic requirements on spending and deficits mean it cannot meet the strictures of the much-maligned Stability and Growth Pact.

These people have no respect for international agreements. .......
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2079116 :wink :rolleyes:

[Phreakmeister]

How damn right you are, DZ. Do you think they should be punished for breaking treaties they subscribed to? Perhaps by the ICC? :wink

Dippy, France hasn't had all that much conservative governments. Let's just look at the French presidents since the Second World War. Vincent Auriol (1947 - 1953), the first president of the Fourth Republic, was a socialist. His successor, René Coty (1953 - 1958) was a moderate conservative. He was succeeded by Charles de Gaulle (1958 - 1969), the first president of the Fifth Republic, who was a non-aligned conservative, just like his successor, Georges Pompidou (1969 - 1974; the first gaullist president). After his untimely death in 1974, Pompidou was succeeded by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (1974 - 1981; his Prime Minister was a certain Jacques Chirac), another gaullist. Giscard d'Estaing was succeeded by socialist François Mitterand (1981 - 1995). Mitterand was succeeded by gaullist Jacques Chirac.
(Gaullists favour the policies of former President Charles de Gaulle. Gaullists have historically supported a strong central government and independence in foreign policy. As such, gaullism can't be referred to as either conservative or liberal, as gaullism is an entirely different concept altogether.)

[Marc]

......

What's the point of that post?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
How damn right you are, DZ. Do you think they should be punished for breaking treaties they subscribed to? Perhaps by the ICC? :wink

Dippy, France hasn't had all that much conservative governments. Let's just look at the French presidents since the Second World War. Vincent Auriol (1947 - 1953), the first president of the Fourth Republic, was a socialist. His successor, René Coty (1953 - 1958) was a moderate conservative. He was succeeded by Charles de Gaulle (1958 - 1969), the first president of the Fifth Republic, who was a non-aligned conservative, just like his successor, Georges Pompidou (1969 - 1974; the first gaullist president). After his untimely death in 1974, Pompidou was succeeded by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (1974 - 1981; his Prime Minister was a certain Jacques Chirac), another gaullist. Giscard d'Estaing was succeeded by socialist François Mitterand (1981 - 1995). Mitterand was succeeded by gaullist Jacques Chirac.
(Gaullists favour the policies of former President Charles de Gaulle. Gaullists have historically supported a strong central government and independence in foreign policy. As such, gaullism can't be referred to as either conservative or liberal, as gaullism is an entirely different concept altogether.)
Do you, or are you going to make excusses for them.

We the peopee run the show. thats what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion.

France has not that option. thats their probelm. But we all KNOW how short you are on constitutional law , dont we.:wink

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Marc
......

What's the point of that post? Phreak got his upity attitude handed to him on a platter once on the constitution of ther U.S.{He did not know as much as he thought}.

he has yet to get it out of his craw.

[Marc]

......Could you ligthen up your point

and I don't really see the relation to France.

As I see in many post, you seem to disagree on everything about France......why this?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Do you, or are you going to make excusses for them.

You mean about them breaking the Stability Pact? Not one single bit. I think France (and Germany) should have been dealt with. I think our dear leaders were a bunch of chickens for saying they would do something but then they didn't do it when they had to. I won't make any excuses for France. They signed and ratified an international agreement, and therefore they had to abide by it. Simple as that. France failed to meet its obligations. France should therefore feel the consequences.

We the peopee run the show. thats what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion.

France has not that option. thats their probelm.

Could you please elucidate this?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister






Could you please elucidate this?

Yes I could and have.
No I wil not AGAIN because{just a few reasons}:
1. Been there done that already.

2, It would go over your head again

3. You would make excuses and keep repeatting the same thing that had been shown wrong and why it was wrong.

4. They dont want massive postings in these threads and have said so.

5. I dont feel like talking to a brick wall.

:lol
p.s. The conversation is archived if they want to go look at it.
now back on subject.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/osama-dates-egypt.jpg

"Dates with Arabic language labels naming them Osama Bin Laden, foreground, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, center, and French President Jacques Chirac, background, are seen in the traditional dates market in Cairo, Saturday, Oct. 25, 2003, in advance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan where Muslims traditionally break their fast with dates. A kilogram of Chirac dates are offered for 13 EGP, US$2, Arafat for 7.5 EGP,US$1.2 and Bin Laden for 6.5 EGP, US$1. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)'.

How honored and proud the french press and french must be to be held just one step below two mass-murdering terrorists.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031025/481/cai10510251434

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Marc
......Could you ligthen up your point

and I don't really see the relation to France.

As I see in many post, you seem to disagree on everything about France......why this? Its france. Its the french and it is france. Why do you say you dont see it???????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????

they disagree with everything about the U.S. Ask them.

They are doing everything they say we should not . hypocrits on thier high horse.I find them more so than others.

other reasons:
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0304/03042803TGR.asp
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7601

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html?th
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml
[dead so go here; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6703
http://www.iht.com/articles/90460.html
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsideco...2003/1/25/03638
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/22/154815.shtml




http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/SAfricanBomb.jpg[/IMG]
The list is endless.

[Marc]

Your not any better...

Except the language.....France and US are, in my opinion, really similar.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Marc
Your not any better...

Except the language.....France and US are, in my opinion, really similar. That is a matter of opinion. I say we are in this case. We surely are not in others. The thread is france, not America.

Their own people made the statements not americans and thats why I thought it interesting.

I was said to be picking on france but apparently not when they say similar things.

[Marc]

"I say we are in this case"

French are saying the same thing than you.

how similar isn't.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

The list is endless.

I thought that the US was one of the few dirty enough to use Cluster bombs, now I can add the french. Atleast the Iraqi's never used them, talk about roll over....

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Yes I could and have.

Where and how have you ever elucidated this "sentence"?

We the peopee run the show. thats what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion.

France has not that option. thats their probelm

I won't go into the spelling errors, because those are just typo's that can happen. What is much much worse is the complete lack of coherence in just about any sentence you have come up with so far. Perhaps you failed to realize that a sentence is more than a collection of words. You say "France has not that option." Which option? To run the show? To have a constitution? Not to have exceptions made to the constitution for its subversion? I assume you mean to say that France does not have the option to run the show. And from your use of "we the peopee", I assume that with France, you mean the French people. I therefore assume you were saying that the French people do not have the option to run the show? Which show? The policies of the French government? Global politics? French politics? And how don't the French people have that option? Which articles of the French constitution say that they don't have that option?
The only thing you have ever done on this board is come up with a few bold yet completely unsubstantiated claims. I don't know what your aim with that is. Maybe you want to impress us with your wisdom, maybe you want to overpower us, I don't know. Yet whatever it is, it has failed, because of your utter lack of even the most basic ability to come up with normal sentences.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.nationalpost.com/review/story.html?id=AA41A5B4-6406-436C-8AD2-4E6E427109BF

Most French people devote their summers to quintessentially Gallic pursuits: celebrating Bastille Day, using up some of their minimum five-week vacation time and going on the occasional strike.

But Sabine Herold, to put it mildly, is not your typical French person. Herold, the 22-year-old leader of Liberté, j'écris ton nom (Freedom, I write your name), has in the past few months emerged as the popular and highly photogenic leader of -- zut! -- a burgeoning pro-market, pro-American counterculture in France. Compared in the panting British press to Joan of Arc, Brigitte Bardot (!) and even Margaret Thatcher, she represents something French politics hasn't seen in years: a public figure eager to take on the country's endlessly striking unions.

Maybe to much of a good thing?

[DEAD ZONE]

Answered already.your starting to get boering phreak.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


I thought that the US was one of the few dirty enough to use Cluster bombs, now I can add the french. Atleast the Iraqi's never used them, talk about roll over.... Whats dirty about a cluster bomb? Do you know what one is and does?

Its no more dirty than any other bomb

[Serendipity]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Compared in the panting British press to Joan of Arc, Brigitte Bardot (!) and even Margaret Thatcher...[/i]Note the word, "panting". There is usually only one reason why attractive young women feature in the British press... ...perhaps Rupert Murdoch ought to learn what news is, and Conrad Black too - as I have often said, he has ruined one of Britain's best conservative newspapers. How anyone could compare Sabine Herold to Thatcher beats me, except in that they both dislike trade unions. Any attractive and feisty French woman gets compared to Joan of Arc in the British press.

You missed something, DZ: there were HUGE pro-war demonstrations in France.

[DEAD ZONE]

Half the missiles were 68 millimeter, which have a range of two to three miles; the others were 85 millimeter, whose range is three to four miles, he said. The smaller ones were French made, and designed for use by helicopters. The others were Russian. The French rockets, officers said, were quite new, and likely purchased after the arms embargo was in place.

"They were in pristine condition," said one military officer who inspected the rocket tubes and assembly.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20031026/ts_nyt/rocket****baghdadhotelwherewolfowitzwasstaying

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Answered already.

Saying you answered it doesn't mean you answered it, DZ. I can understand why you wanna get this over with as soon as possible, but making a statement, leaving it unsubstantiated and then not wanting to address your statement any longer is not the proper way to discuss on this board.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Whats dirty about a cluster bomb? Do you know what one is and does?

Its no more dirty than any other bomb

You practicly lay a minefield there theouth all those unexploded sub munitions!!!

OOOoo ya the US were against a minefield ban. Oke:smash

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Saying you answered it doesn't mean you answered it, DZ. I can understand why you wanna get this over with as soon as possible, but making a statement, leaving it unsubstantiated and then not wanting to address your statement any longer is not the proper way to discuss on this board. It was answered and you pull this same routine every time the issue comes up. It’s starting to get real old.

When you learn to actually read the statements and deal with them instead of constantly repeating the same lines over and over again we can talk.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


You practicly lay a minefield there theouth all those unexploded sub munitions!!!

OOOoo ya the US were against a minefield ban. Oke:smash LOL. What makes you think they are mines. They are bomblet sub munitions that detonate on or over a target. A cluster bomb is not a good mine laying device AW.

Many were aginst it becaus as usual its all europ fluff over substance. Try enforcing it::rolleyes:

[weldordave]

Originally posted by AWPrime


You practicly lay a minefield there theouth all those unexploded sub munitions!!!

OOOoo ya the US were against a minefield ban. Oke:smash
Well, aw does not know what a cluster bomb is. Go figure. A Euro, who claims his location as the Antarctic, when I got more time there wiping my as$ than he does on his little cruise ship. You'll always be on the outside looking in, aw.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by weldordave

Well, aw does not know what a cluster bomb is. Go figure. A Euro, who claims his location as the Antarctic, when I got more time there wiping my as$ than he does on his little cruise ship. You'll always be on the outside looking in, aw.
But isn't it true that some percentage of the bombs (I can't remember the exact figure) don't explode imediately but lays around untill someone touches it. Sounds like mines to me. ...whats in the name, you know.

[weldordave]

Only the ones that were built outside the US don't explode. We just love death soo much. Maybe the non-exploders were built by Danish sub-contracters.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by weldordave
Only the ones that were built outside the US don't explode. We just love death soo much. Maybe the non-exploders were built by Danish sub-contracters.
If they were built by Afghani sub-contracters, it wouldn't matter. They are still used by the US, so it's their responsibility. Or are you going to sue Smith & Wesson every time some punk uses one of their guns to commit a crime?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax

But isn't it true that some percentage of the bombs (I can't remember the exact figure) don't explode imediately but lays around untill someone touches it. Sounds like mines to me. ...whats in the name, you know. Yes and no. They can be packed with different kinds of munitions. They are not relegated to just mine laying as anyone that simply saw a video of any recent war would know.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
...anyone that simply saw a video of any recent war would know.
Who make those videos? The US airforce? I personally wouldn't base my entire knowledge of something on one video.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Sjax

But isn't it true that some percentage of the bombs (I can't remember the exact figure) don't explode imediately but lays around untill someone touches it. Sounds like mines to me. ...whats in the name, you know.

exacly what I was saying, The undetonated munition are practicaly mines!

[sinecure]

Here.... all you guys ought to know what the heck you're writing aboutr... see:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm

and from those infamous Mennonite warriors:

http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/drop_today/#7E1E

[actually, the first link borrowed from the Mennonite source... they may be pacifists, but in this case, it seems that they did their homework. :wink ]

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax

Who make those videos? The US airforce? I personally wouldn't base my entire knowledge of something on one video. I said any recent war sir. 1991 remember?The voices of the appeasers and their colective amnesia seek to undermine resolve ans sense once again.
You dont trust anyone that does not agree with you. But we new that already.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


exacly what I was saying, The undetonated munition are practicaly mines! OH! Lets back track and redefine a bit . ok. Well thats true of any bomb. Cluster bombs are no more or less likely to do this now are they

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure
Here.... all you guys ought to know what the heck you're writing aboutr... see:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm

and from those infamous Mennonite warriors:

http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/drop_today/#7E1E

[actually, the first link borrowed from the Mennonite source... they may be pacifists, but in this case, it seems that they did their homework. :wink ] I did not say they could not lay mines. I said they are not the most effect. You can see the damned things. Slightly bellow ground is far more effective IMHO.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/iraq_and_the_re.html

"it is frivolous to suppose that what keeps the community of states from aiding Iraq is the incidence of terrorist attacks. The squabbling at the Madrid donors' conference was not primarily about Iraq: it was about Europe's relations with the United States. What motivates certain European governments is a plain wish for Anglo-American administration in Iraq to fail. Witness the fatuous observation made yesterday by the most venal of European agents:"

France, a leading anti-war campaigner, also condemned the attacks but emphasised the importance of restoring sovereignty to Iraqis as a means of stopping the bloodshed.

The only sense I can make of this is that the French seriously believe the terrorists in Iraq are demanding popular sovereignty. They're not: popular sovereignty is what the terrorists oppose. Their aims are heterogeneous but allied: the restoration of brutal dictatorship, whether in the form of Baathist terror or a revived Caliphate. There is no political solution available to the liberal West in dealing with these forces; all that is open to us is to defeat them militarily. It is no exaggeration that the most important task for liberals in the world order today is to give unreserved support to British and American troops in that aim."



The french are to ecstatic about dead Americans to be taken seriously on iraqs future and its needs.

http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/willem-pipe.gif

"-- Bravo! The first pipeline from Baghdad to Texas! -- To ship back the bodies of our Boys! (the truck is labelled 'Halliburton') "

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
OH! Lets back track and redefine a bit . ok. Well thats true of any bomb. Cluster bombs are no more or less likely to do this now are they

Yes but they do produce a larger number of unexploded ammo. And unlike big bombs, submunitions may look like a can of food or a toy to a child.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Yes but they do produce a larger number of unexploded ammo. And unlike big bombs, submunitions may look like a can of food or a toy to a child. never said they did not have duds. You cant prove that they have more than anything else. Its wishfull thinking. They are not desighned tolook like food cans and they dont really.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by AWPrime


exacly what I was saying, The undetonated munition are practicaly mines!
"Practically mines" What thehe1l are you saying? "Practically..." Are they mines, NO. Does a cop pull you over for "practically" speeding? Do you "practically" commit murder? Did France "practically" break UN rules by selling Roland missles to Iraq? Did Saddam "practically" kill, imprison, and torture innocent people? Did you "practically" visit the Antarctic?

Just imagine...
Prosecutor: The state is charging you with "practically" distributing a harmful substance.
Judge: How does the defendant plea?
Defendant: "Practically" innocent, your Honor.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
It was answered and you pull this same routine every time the issue comes up. It’s starting to get real old.

Care to prove me wrong then? Where did you mention this before (in other threads, that is)? Feel free to link to the threads. If you have addressed it before, it shouldn't be all that difficult for you to prove it.

When you learn to actually read the statements and deal with them

I try to, because I don't wanna misunderstand you, but it gets so hard when you make about as much sense as a three-year old.

[AWPrime]

Example:

One normal bomb dropped and it didn't go off - 1 accident waiting to happen.

One clusterbomb dropped and some of the submunitions it didn't go off - A hell of a lot of accidents waiting to happen.



Weldordave do you want me to say it, then I will.

Unexploded ammo is a mine of missery! They explode easy because their armed! So I compare them to a low quality mine.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Care to prove me wrong then? Where did you mention this before (in other threads, that is)? Feel free to link to the threads. If you have addressed it before, it shouldn't be all that difficult for you to prove it.



I try to, because I don't wanna misunderstand you, but it gets so hard when you make about as much sense as a three-year old.

Here is what was said.
You;
How damn right you are, DZ. Do you think they should be punished for breaking treaties they subscribed to? Perhaps by the ICC?

Phreak got his uppity attitude handed to him on a platter once on the constitution of the U.S.{He did not know as much as he thought}.

He has yet to get it out of his craw.

AND

We the people run the show. That’s what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion.

Keep this in mind because you already are changing the subject. A common tactic of yours by sinisterly inserting the generic topic in as what was mentioned {including the present one} which it clearly was not. This always gives you your out.
You know as I what you were referring to.

You pulled this same routine here:
http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2072&perpage=15&highlight=article%20six%20constituion&pagenumber=2

And this is the thread that you got an education in.
http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1671

I will sit back and wait for the diversions and excuses as to how you ment something else now or how you will redefine what I meant to make your out work.





:lol

[AWPrime]

Don't try to be holy DZ.

You deliberetly make grammer and spelling errors to confuse others.

[AWPrime]

Have looked thought your links and found that:

It's just your inablility to understand some arguments that's making you think that Preak is changing the subject.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Don't try to be holy DZ.

You deliberetly make grammer and spelling errors to confuse others. For starters I do not.
Second, that would mean the afore mentioned party deliberately misrepresents and is proud of it.

There was nothing confusing about the posts and you know it but it does seem to be an excuse used for deliberate, misrepresentation.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Have looked thought your links and found that:

It's just your inablility to understand some arguments that's making you think that Preak is changing the subject. Yea right. The arguments were clear and they were not just snippets out of context but flat bad arguments. It’s the other side’s inability to grasp a context and the simple idea of intent that’s the problem. Not unlike your previous post or the ones in the gun control thread. but especially the cluster bomb idea.:lol

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
There was nothing confusing about the posts and you know it but it does seem to be an excuse used for deliberate, misrepresentation.

Your spelling is now and then so bad that I am forced to guess what you mean.


I know (or hope) that you can do better. This has left me with only one conclusion: it's deliberate! :mad

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Your spelling is now and then so bad that I am forced to guess what you mean.


I know (or hope) that you can do better. This has left me with only one conclusion: it's deliberate! :mad Really. Try harder.

Why: They know that terrorisme is not such a big thread as must politicans like to make use believe.



terrorisme ?? Its terrorism.

thread? Its threat

There are many other examples of glass houses but why bother.

[DEAD ZONE]

"The Post reports on the interrogation of Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's "deputy prime minister": "Aziz has told interrogators that French and Russian intermediaries repeatedly assured Hussein during late 2002 and early this year that they would block a U.S.-led war through delays and vetoes at the U.N. Security Council."

Paris and Moscow may have outsmarted themselves, however:

Later, according to Aziz, Hussein concluded after private talks with French and Russian contacts that the United States would probably wage a long air war first, as it had done in previous conflicts. By hunkering down and putting up a stiff defense, he might buy enough time to win a cease-fire brokered by Paris and Moscow.

The Post notes that Aziz's account "has not been corroborated by other sources" and that U.S. interrogators speculate that "Aziz might be trying to pander to his American captors' anger at French and Russian conduct before the war."

Another Post report says "the CIA has seized an extensive cache of files from the former Iraqi Intelligence Service that is spurring U.S. investigations of weapons procurement networks and agents of influence who took money from the government of Saddam Hussein." A "senior U.S. official" likens the files--which "would stretch 9 1/2 miles if laid end to end," to the files of East Germany's secret police, the Stasi.

"The officials declined to name individuals who they believe received funds or to name the home countries of the alleged recipients," the Post reports. It should be fascinating to watch as more information becomes available on both these stories."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55022-2003Nov2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54942-2003Nov2.html

[weldordave]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Your spelling is now and then so bad that I am forced to guess what you mean.


I know (or hope) that you can do better. This has left me with only one conclusion: it's deliberate! :mad
Well, aw, "aint" you the kettle calling the pot black. While your abilities in American English are acceptable, your tenses and adverb useage are typical of a foreigner. Your sig is a prime example of the complete misunderstanding you have of English. Every time you post we all see your ignorance of written English. Rather than criticize you when first seen, I viewed it as an admirable attempt for you to convey a thought in English. It is wrong. With that said, your move to perhaps annoy the Texan by pointing out his spelling errors is laughable. I type with two pencils because one of my fingers will cover multiple keys. DZ may have the same problem, or maybe just a good buzz on. No matter. The criticizing of his English skills should not be coming from your keyboard!

[Phreakmeister]

I won't defend or condemn AW's spelling, but I want to explain one thing: many words he uses are direct translations of Dutch words. Sometimes he writes words in Dutch instead of in English (e.g. terrorisme). Some proverbs or sayings are direct translations of their Dutch equivalents. AW seems to have problems translating his views from his native Dutch into English. For those on this board who can read Dutch (Enforcer, Mendacem, perhaps Zandi, and yours truly), it's not all that difficult to deduct the Dutch sentence AW had in mind from the English text he wrote down.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Here is what was said.

...

I will sit back and wait for the diversions and excuses as to how you ment something else now or how you will redefine what I meant to make your out work.

:lol :lol :lol

Don't worry, DZ. I won't try to undermine or subvert your posts. You can manage very well without me. I don't have to explain "how I meant something else," because I didn't mean anything else than what I've posted. I'm sorry to see you can't take a beating, but the sad reality of your posts is that you hardly ever manage to make sense. I won't address the specifics of the threads you linked to, because that discussion is a dead horse, but obviously you can't deal with the reality of legal documents. Legal documents are the way they are, and they can't say anything else than what they say. You have constantly said how laws, treaties and the Constitution should be, and that's all very laudable, but when the discussion is about how laws, treaties and the Constitution are that is completely irrelevant. Perhaps the Constitution shouldn't let the US be bound by the treaties it signs, perhaps the Constitution should let the US do whatever it pleases, at home and abroad, without paying attention to treaties, perhaps the Constitution should give the president unconditional freedom abroad, but the simple fact is that the Constitution doesn't allow for all this. The simple fact is that the Constitution clearly and undeniably states (Article VI, Clause II) that all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. This specific case was about the way Texas treated Mexican defendants. So unless there is any law or any part of Constitution that allows for the treatment of these defendants, unless this treaty goes against any law, the US is legally bound to grant the defendants the rights accorded to them in the treaty the US signed and ratified. There is no law allowing for this particular treatment and there is no law banning what the treaty says (the right of defendants to meet with representatives of their nations), the US has to abide by this. Whether what was signed and ratified was morally right is another discussion, but the simple reality is that it was signed and ratified, and as such the US is obliged to abide by it. That is the sad consequence of signing and ratifying treaties.

What surprises me is that you apparently took my question (How damn right you are, DZ. Do you think they should be punished for breaking treaties they subscribed to? Perhaps by the ICC?) seriously, despite the wink behind the question...

You said We the people run the show. That’s what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion. France has not that option. thats their probelm. I asked some very legitimate questions about this statement, which you failed to answer. You said "France has not that option." Which option? To run the show? To have a constitution? Not to have exceptions made to the constitution for its subversion? I assume you mean to say that France does not have the option to run the show. And from your use of "we the people", I assume that with France, you mean the French people. I therefore assume you were saying that the French people do not have the option to run the show? Which show? The policies of the French government? Global politics? French politics? And in what way don't the French people have that option? Which articles of the French constitution say that they don't have that option? What prevents them from having the option (whatever option it may be) you claim you have?

It's not me who is changing the subject. I am merely responding to your statements. If you say anything about French politics, then pardon me for saying something about French politcs in return. If you bring the subject to the comparison between American politics ("we the people run the show") and French politics ("They don't have that option"), I will damn well respond to it. And when you bring the subject to an ICC ruling, I will damn well respond to it. I try to keep the discussion on topic as much as possible, but if I have to leave the topic for a short while in response to what you have been saying, then so be it.

[AWPrime]

At least I have the excuse of being dutch and dyslexic.

[weldordave]

So being Dutch is the excuse of criticising others of shortcomings that you are also committing.

[Sjax]

Could we please stay on topic, which is not the spelling or language abilities of DL members.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


:lol :lol :lol

Don't worry, DZ. I won't try to undermine or subvert your posts. You can manage very well without me. I don't have to explain "how I meant something else," because I didn't mean anything else than what I've posted. I'm sorry to see you can't take a beating, but the sad reality of your posts is that you hardly ever manage to make sense. I won't address the specifics of the threads you linked to, because that discussion is a dead horse, but obviously you can't deal with the reality of legal documents. Legal documents are the way they are, and they can't say anything else than what they say. You have constantly said how laws, treaties and the Constitution should be, and that's all very laudable, but when the discussion is about how laws, treaties and the Constitution are that is completely irrelevant. Perhaps the Constitution shouldn't let the US be bound by the treaties it signs, perhaps the Constitution should let the US do whatever it pleases, at home and abroad, without paying attention to treaties, perhaps the Constitution should give the president unconditional freedom abroad, but the simple fact is that the Constitution doesn't allow for all this. The simple fact is that the Constitution clearly and undeniably states (Article VI, Clause II) that all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. This specific case was about the way Texas treated Mexican defendants. So unless there is any law or any part of Constitution that allows for the treatment of these defendants, unless this treaty goes against any law, the US is legally bound to grant the defendants the rights accorded to them in the treaty the US signed and ratified. There is no law allowing for this particular treatment and there is no law banning what the treaty says (the right of defendants to meet with representatives of their nations), the US has to abide by this. Whether what was signed and ratified was morally right is another discussion, but the simple reality is that it was signed and ratified, and as such the US is obliged to abide by it. That is the sad consequence of signing and ratifying treaties.

What surprises me is that you apparently took my question (How damn right you are, DZ. Do you think they should be punished for breaking treaties they subscribed to? Perhaps by the ICC?) seriously, despite the wink behind the question...

You said We the people run the show. That’s what the constitution says and no exceptions are made for its subversion. France has not that option. thats their probelm. I asked some very legitimate questions about this statement, which you failed to answer. You said "France has not that option." Which option? To run the show? To have a constitution? Not to have exceptions made to the constitution for its subversion? I assume you mean to say that France does not have the option to run the show. And from your use of "we the people", I assume that with France, you mean the French people. I therefore assume you were saying that the French people do not have the option to run the show? Which show? The policies of the French government? Global politics? French politics? And in what way don't the French people have that option? Which articles of the French constitution say that they don't have that option? What prevents them from having the option (whatever option it may be) you claim you have?

It's not me who is changing the subject. I am merely responding to your statements. If you say anything about French politics, then pardon me for saying something about French politcs in return. If you bring the subject to the comparison between American politics ("we the people run the show") and French politics ("They don't have that option"), I will damn well respond to it. And when you bring the subject to an ICC ruling, I will damn well respond to it. I try to keep the discussion on topic as much as possible, but if I have to leave the topic for a short while in response to what you have been saying, then so be it.
http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/grinser/grinning-smiley-010.gif
Man can you shovel it.
http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/grinser/grinning-smiley-027.gif
Thank you for further proving my point. You chose to leave topic. You initiated it and I responded. Get it Right.

You wink was followed by a direct question asking for it. But we can cover that with a long rehash of what you said you would not ......yhada yhada yhada.

Summed up you posted a lot of fluff and answered nothing. Typical Phreak response.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax
Could we please stay on topic, which is not the spelling or language abilities of DL members. Its all they have left.

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Sjax
Could we please stay on topic, which is not the spelling or language abilities of DL members.
HMMM. Wonder why this didn't come on page 4 after aw post on spelling by the Texan????? Birds of a feather....:rolleyes:

[Marc]

Terrorisme is the french word for "terrorism"

[Sjax]

Originally posted by weldordave
HMMM. Wonder why this didn't come on page 4 after aw post on spelling by the Texan?????
It was as much a comment to AW as it was to you, Dave. This thread is neither about DZs or AWs spelling abilities.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Sjax

It was as much a comment to AW as it was to you, Dave. This thread is neither about DZs or AWs spelling abilities. Thank you. Wish this was posted every time it came up.

By the way, we are not French and don’t speak it so terrorism or terrorisme is irrelevant to picking an off topic as a defense.

And this is not far of the mark:

With that said, your move to perhaps annoy the Texan by pointing out his spelling errors is laughable. I type with two pencils because one of my fingers will cover multiple keys. DZ may have the same problem, or maybe just a good buzz on. No matter. The criticizing of his English skills should not be coming from your keyboard!

[weldordave]

Uh, [Dave surmizes] the Texan is buzzed and Sjax is fair and balanced.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/grinser/grinning-smiley-010.gif
Man can you shovel it.
http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/grinser/grinning-smiley-027.gif
Thank you for further proving my point. You chose to leave topic. You initiated it and I responded. Get it Right.

:lol :lol :lol

No comment required. Whatever it is your drinking, throw it down the drain.

You wink was followed by a direct question asking for it. But we can cover that with a long rehash of what you said you would not ......yhada yhada yhada.

My wink was followed by a direct question? Where? Which one? My wink was followed by this:

Dippy, France hasn't had all that much conservative governments. Let's just look at the French presidents since the Second World War. Vincent Auriol (1947 - 1953), the first president of the Fourth Republic, was a socialist. His successor, René Coty (1953 - 1958) was a moderate conservative. He was succeeded by Charles de Gaulle (1958 - 1969), the first president of the Fifth Republic, who was a non-aligned conservative, just like his successor, Georges Pompidou (1969 - 1974; the first gaullist president). After his untimely death in 1974, Pompidou was succeeded by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (1974 - 1981; his Prime Minister was a certain Jacques Chirac), another gaullist. Giscard d'Estaing was succeeded by socialist François Mitterand (1981 - 1995). Mitterand was succeeded by gaullist Jacques Chirac.
(Gaullists favour the policies of former President Charles de Gaulle. Gaullists have historically supported a strong central government and independence in foreign policy. As such, gaullism can't be referred to as either conservative or liberal, as gaullism is an entirely different concept altogether.)