|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 28, 2003 04:51 PM |
|
|
That's not even funny, french soldiers and troops fought and died in 1940 two years before the americans turned up in the ETO. They chose their side long before then, but then when abbandonned by their allies and hope tried to salvage what they could of their country to fight another day if needs be.
And some of them, under De Gaulle DID fight on regardless
Hardly changing sides all the time, more a country split views on how best to save france, both with valid points.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Gothmog
Adventuring Hero
Honorable
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 06:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not even funny, french soldiers and troops fought and died in 1940 two years before the americans turned up in the ETO. They chose their side long before then, but then when abbandonned by their allies and hope tried to salvage what they could of their country to fight another day if needs be.
And some of them, under De Gaulle DID fight on regardless
Hardly changing sides all the time, more a country split views on how best to save france, both with valid points.
Totally agree. Those five permanent council members were chosen for valid reasons, mainly for their determination and sacrifice in WWII.
Russia stopped the German Juggernaut; China fought against Japan for several years, UNAIDED, before the US intervention.
Without Russia, China, and France, there was no way that UK and US could win that war, not to mention that US might not even join fight against the Axis in the first place.
____________
He who attacks seldom defends.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 06:04 PM |
|
|
|
It was never meant to be funny. I fail to see how cozying up to the Nazis is a "valid point." If it was such a reasonable and practical idea, then where was Vichy Poland? Vichy Britain? Vichy Russia?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 06:35 PM |
|
|
Hello boys (Mae West voice)
dArGOn, Isn't it amazing how the liberal, one-sided, misleading, brainwashed leftist press informed us of all the points in your twelve-point bulletin above??? (I saw all of that on CNN which presumably is one of the worst offenders, or so accused in this thread). Are you sure the press is so slanted?
I have heard this all my life and frankly think the point is overblown. The things missing from the press are not necessarily liberal or convervative. What's missing from the radar screen is whatever is anticipated not to be of interest according to present prevailing public sentiment, or what won't sell air time.
For instance, did you have any knowledge whatsoever of two thousand liberal, leftist, activist observers on the Navajo Reservation on July 7, 1986 who were there to stop the government execution of PL 93-531 -- the final date by that law to remove all Hopis and Navajos from "disputed" land (which happened to contain the sleuce line for Peabody Coal Company)? I thought not. Nobody cared dude. That's why it wasn't in the press.
On the other hand, I do find your recitation of the statistics on the school shooting suspicious. Wonder what that was all about??? Have you written any of these agencies and challenged them on their failure to report? Where did that statistic come from by the way? If it is accurate, I'm with you on that one that it is just not cool.
Second, Wolfman, the United States Supreme Court has spoken countless times to the issue of freedom of speech and what that consitutional provision means. I am afraid you are construing it too narrowly in comparison with the Supreme Court's findings. There are precious few things that do not count as freedom of speech. You are catching too many things in the very thin net of what is prohibited. What it really comes down to is that you can speak and act in virtually any way unless it causes an actual threat or danger to someone else (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre when there is none; inciting people to riot, etc.) Trust me my friend. You would not want it any narrower than that. If it were, one day you might find yourself caught in the net too.
PH -- I'm sending you a little package on the side relevant to your arguments concerning logic. I thought you might enjoy it. 
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 07:31 PM |
|
|
Bort: You're being overly critical of something at one side and wrong on the other.
Quote:
I fail to see how cozying up to the Nazis is a "valid point."
When the allies where shelling their towns, colonies, sinking their ships and abbandonning them mid campaign cozying up to the allies didn't look to pleasant either does it really? Secondly, you need to read my part about the political siuation in 1940. Britain was rocked back on her heels, maybe close to concluding peace. America was by no means committed at all to involving itself. To any but the most hopeful of frenchmen the chances of liberating france or any part of france remaining even remotely free of german influence was to accept what little they could in the hope that in future they would recover, or circumstances would allow them to drive the germans back again.
Clear cut situations simply don't exist, it wasn't a black and white fight with the allies or side with the germans, they tried what best they could for a neutral france to survive, they succeded for some time. They failed ulitmately, Cest La Vie I guess.
Quote:
If it was such a reasonable and practical idea, then where was Vichy Poland? Vichy Britain? Vichy Russia?
I did not say I personally thought it was reasonable, merely that I could understand those that did. It's not really something I would have supported, I just meant I could understand why some frenchmen chose to support it when the alternative was utter loss of france with perhaps no allied intervention. As for the countries you mention:
Poland and Russia both did provide large troop numbers in the war for the SS and german army. Polish civilians, and Russian minority civilians were sometimes actively involved in campaigns against the Jews or communists as there was no love lost between the two. The difference is political situation mainly, Germany overrun Poland in it's entirety, no need to cede half of it in favour of a quick, easy victory. Russia and Britain never concluded peace treaty with the germans that meant their surrender, so the argument is pointless. Satelite states are set up in the wake of peace treaties, not the midst of a war. The situation simply never occured. So they did collaborate, even the british had troops in the SS, but they never were in the same situation as france so it's irrelevant to compare the two.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2003 08:27 PM |
|
|
dargon....i'll tell you what's corrupt. It's the power of the US. about france being iraqs top trade partner only less then 1% of all their trade and that means that they are not their top trade partner...talking about trade i recall that some years back mr. Rumsfeld went to iraq to propose economical help and trade...thik about that before you write. anyone smart enough knows why that is #1 iraq produces petrol
#2 Saddam Husein was helped up by the Us adminstration beacouse a leftist party had was taking power(a "Communsit threat of influence") this scenarion is quite similair to the one of Pinochet and later the us also "liberated" Chile...
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 06:58 AM |
|
|
I never thought I would see the day that PH would defend the Frenchƒº None the less I would personally NEVER ally myself with types like Hitler to save my own hide¡Kthat is like selling your soul to the devil. There are things much more valuable then one¡¦s life and country¡Knamely virtue. There is absolutely no excuse for what the French did¡Kabsolutely none. At best they are cowards at worst partners in war crimes.
In the end I don¡¦t hold the present French accountable for that¡Kcuase it is history and the current people didn¡¦t make that decision. Their current behavior though does make me sick¡Kparticularly the evidence that they gave visas to top Iraqi officials to get out of Iraq recently.
Quote
¡§Where did that statistic come from by the way? If it is accurate, I'm with you on that one that it is just not cool.¡¨
The evidence came from a Lexus Nexus search¡K.hardly a biased resource. I am surprised that someone of your education isn¡¦t obviously aware of the bias¡Kmaybe time to expand your reading library Doubting the liberal media bias is so well documented it becomes ridiculous to argue about it.
But we are all somewhat prisoners of our political perspective¡K.lately with all the baseless, pitiful nitpicking that dems have been doing about Bush¡Kit has made me reflect upon how republicans have done the same¡KI remember a big stink being raised about how much it cost Clinton to get his hair cut on a plane¡K.and upon reflection that type of stuff is just petty bipartisan politics. I wish both parties would grow up sometimes.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I never thought I would see the day that PH would defend the Frenchƒº None the less I would personally NEVER ally myself with types like Hitler to save my own hide¡Kthat is like selling your soul to the devil.
Did you not READ what I said? They did not ally themselves with anyone, they tried to remain neutral and would have fought Hitler with much more vehemence than the allies had he invaded their territory first. Many of the troops in the foreign legion forts in africa sided with the allies before 1942, and once it was clear neutrality was a pipe dream these "hitler allies" fought for the allies for the best part of 3 years to liberate france themselves (unpopular notion I know, that the french didn't sit around idly whilst America rescued the world almost alone).
Besides what makes you imagine that if you had been an individual in Vichy France in the later part of 1940 that you would have had a choice what conditions the germans chose to impose on your country?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 09, 2003 03:05 PM |
|
|
Doing Business With Iraq
I found a neat article on the web at NewsMax.com that might help shed some light on countries and businesses that have had dealings with Iraq.
Iraq's Big Business List
Stewart Stogel
Wednesday Dec. 18, 2002
UNITED NATIONS – Now that the entire U.N. Security Council has received its copies of Iraq's latest full final and complete weapons disclosures, the attention on its contents will certainly intensify. Even though its analysis has not yet been completed, the White House has made it clear that Baghdad's disclosures fall "far short" of the Council's demands.
One area of keen interest, is the so-called "list" of foreign companies which have done business with the Baghdad regime legally or illegally.
Since 1996, when the first list was formulated, the Council has opted not disclose the "members" of the Iraqi "trading" community. The reason offered for the secrecy is that critical cooperation needed to help uncover Iraq's weapons programs from such companies may be withheld if they were under public scrutiny. However, bits and pieces of the list have begun to surface.
NewsMax has compiled its own list based entirely on open source material including news reports and court filings.
Though this list is also incomplete, it does provide a picture of just how broad Saddam Hussein's dealings with the international business community had become.
United States ---------------------
Boeing - Provided commercial jet transports to Iraqi Airways.
Tyson Foods- With the intervention of then Governor Bill Clinton, contracts for food stuffs were negotiated. Coincidentally, Iraq's former U.S. and U.N. ambassador Nizar Hamdoon proudly displays a photo of him and Clinton shaking hands in Little Rock as they met over the potential sales from Arkansas companies.
Cargil - Provided grain.
Intel - Latest Pentium 4 chips have been found in Iraqi produced PC's. Such technology transfers are illegal. It’s not clear how the items have been obtained. Former foreign minister, now Iraqi minister of information, Mohammed Said al-Sahaf, once told this reporter not to buy a PC in NYC: "I can get you a PC with the latest Intel chip cheaper in Baghdad," he proudly bragged.
United Kingdom -----------------------
Unilever - One of the world's largest consumer products companies admitted that a small subsidiary did provide supplies of biological growth media to Iraqi hospitals. U.N. says more than 9 tons of the media cannot be accounted for. Growth media is essential for the production of biological weapons agents such as botulism and anthrax. U.N. says 9 tons of growth media could feed a BW arsenal larger than that of Russia or the US.
Marconi - Recently dissolved UK electronics giant. Provided communications and radar components to the Iraqi military.
France ----------
Aerospatiale - Major Aerospace firm. Known for its AirBus jets. Also known for the Exocet missile. This multipurpose surface-to-surface missile was used by Baghdad "mistakenly" against the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980's. It was later deployed by Iraq against Coalition air forces in the Persian Gulf War.
Thomson-CSF - Major electronics firm. Provided communications gear to the Iraqi military.
Elf-Total - Major oil company. Assisted in Iraqi oil exports.
Switzerland -----------------
Breitling - Well-known maker of luxury watches. Provided timing mechanisms to the Iraqi air force.
ABB - Multinational corporation whose activities include building nuclear power plants. ABB parts found in Iraq's nuclear "research" program.
Germany --------------
Siemens - Giant industrial firm found to have extensive dealings with Baghdad including its nuclear "research" program.
Imhausen Chemie - Chemical firm the subject of an intensive investigation by the German attorney general in the late 1990's. Found to have sold products which U.N. inspectors believed went to Baghdad's CW program.
South Korea ------------------
Samsung - Well known consumer/industrial electronics giant. Has provided Iraq with CD and DVD encrypting technology which technically violates U.N. sanctions. The Samsung logo was brazenly displayed on CD's containing Iraq's latest declarations given to the UN. When one U.S. diplomat was asked by NewsMax how Iraq could provide weapons documents in CD form if CD burners are illegal for Iraq to have, he replied: "That's a good question."
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 07:41 PM |
|
|
LK SSSS Khayman. 
(P.S. Since you might not have seen the explanation for this earlier, this non-verbal is intended to depict one licking one's thumb and placing it on one's hip causing a short sizzling sound and a small puff of steam to emanate from the site of thumb-placement.)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Their current behavior though does make me sick¡Kparticularly the evidence that they gave visas to top Iraqi officials to get out of Iraq recently.
*clears throat*
Forgetting whom was rescued from Germany at the end of WWII to build up the appollo missions for you I guess? Or how many CIA operatives were former Gestapo chiefs? Or how many industrialists in Britain were previously building panzers for Hitler? Or how about the rumours that Tariq aziz will be handed a nice big safe house in Britain whilst we pump him for information?
Quote:
There is absolutely no excuse for what the French did¡Kabsolutely none. At best they are cowards at worst partners in war crimes.
Cowards: Right, they fight before you joined the war, loose tens of thousands of lives in 1940, continue fighting for the allied cause in the resistance in the next 4 years, provide the allied armies with oooooo about 4-5 corps of troops (well over 100,000 ground soldiers) and you call them cowards? A small percentage were actively involved in collaboration, but at the same time, the civilians at large hated the regime they were under, and many assisted were possible the allies through allowing escaped pilots to flee south into spain and other ways. The people of france suffered terribly under german rule, but still their resistance (and those of other countries) actions prior to D-day and in the following campaigns were a god-send to the allies
If you're going to throw around pointless after the fact accusations you might as well throw the same accusation at countries that sat on the sidelines for 2 years not bothering to fight hitler whilst others (including you may wish to take note FRANCE) died for them. Or how about the countries selling consumer goods and other things to germany before they entered the war, trading with a known dictator? How about fellow dictators choosing to side with him and following similar methods against their populations? How about countries selling other sovereign nations down the river at conferences to ensure "peace in our time"?
Or how about you do some research, if you're really so concerned with countries that fought with or sections of countries that "allied" themselves to Hitler, you really should read something like the list of divisions of the Waffen SS during the last years of the war. Put simply there's pretty much no nation of occupied europe not fighting under the SS banner in some way or other.
So isn't the more relevant question why are you singling out france for special criticism, rather than why would I defend them? You can say you're not linking what you consider a war crime and cowardice to the modern day state, but by raising it at the same thread as one where you have constantly launched criticism at their current government (mostly justified I agree) it just comes across as one more attempt to undermine the french stance, but this one is on a totally biased and loosely factually based argument that has almost no relevance to the present situation.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 08:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Their current behavior though does make me sick¡Kparticularly the evidence that they gave visas to top Iraqi officials to get out of Iraq recently.
*clears throat*
Forgetting whom was rescued from Germany at the end of WWII to build up the appollo missions for you I guess? Or how many CIA operatives were former Gestapo chiefs? Or how many industrialists in Britain were previously building panzers for Hitler? Or how about the rumours that Tariq aziz will be handed a nice big safe house in Britain whilst we pump him for information?
Quote:
There is absolutely no excuse for what the French did¡Kabsolutely none. At best they are cowards at worst partners in war crimes.
Cowards: Right, they fight before you joined the war, loose tens of thousands of lives in 1940, continue fighting for the allied cause in the resistance in the next 4 years, provide the allied armies with oooooo about 4-5 corps of troops (well over 100,000 ground soldiers) and you call them cowards? A small percentage were actively involved in collaboration, but at the same time, the civilians at large hated the regime they were under, and many assisted were possible the allies through allowing escaped pilots to flee south into spain and other ways. The people of france suffered terribly under german rule, but still their resistance (and those of other countries) actions prior to D-day and in the following campaigns were a god-send to the allies
If you're going to throw around pointless after the fact accusations you might as well throw the same accusation at countries that sat on the sidelines for 2 years not bothering to fight hitler whilst others (including you may wish to take note FRANCE) died for them. Or how about the countries selling consumer goods and other things to germany before they entered the war, trading with a known dictator? How about fellow dictators choosing to side with him and following similar methods against their populations? How about countries selling other sovereign nations down the river at conferences to ensure "peace in our time"?
Or how about you do some research, if you're really so concerned with countries that fought with or sections of countries that "allied" themselves to Hitler, you really should read something like the list of divisions of the Waffen SS during the last years of the war. Put simply there's pretty much no nation of occupied europe not fighting under the SS banner in some way or other.
So isn't the more relevant question why are you singling out france for special criticism, rather than why would I defend them? You can say you're not linking what you consider a war crime and cowardice to the modern day state, but by raising it at the same thread as one where you have constantly launched criticism at their current government (mostly justified I agree) it just comes across as one more attempt to undermine the french stance, but this one is on a totally biased and loosely factually based argument that has almost no relevance to the present situation.
So you wonder why the French are being targeted over other countries?
Perhaps we should take a look back on the original problems with Iraq and France. In the 1980s, the French government built a nuclear power plant for Iraq. After it was built, Saddam declare that the first thing he was going to do would be to drop a bomb on Israel. Luckily, the military of that country is fanatical. It went straight down into Iraq and blew up the damn thing. France has been trading with Iraq, since that point over the black market. But not just France, Germany, Russia.
But France was far more vocal on not attacking Iraq giving a bunch of bull**** reasons on why it shouldn't be done. It's clear that they don't want to lose cheap oil over the black market. But after we won the war and the regime was defeated, France completely changes sides and declares victory in a war to which they were opposed and gave no aid to fight. I think this is the main thing that makes France stand out as a backstabber, since we have traditionally been allies over the past 100 years or so. Germany and Russia especially haven't been allies to us for quite some time, so such actions are taken less personal than those of France.
Here's an analogy:
Would you be more upset at one of your friends if they did something behind your back or someone you don't know very well with a suspect history of relations between the both of you.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 02:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps we should take a look back on the original problems with Iraq and France. In the 1980s, the French government built a nuclear power plant for Iraq. After it was built, Saddam declare that the first thing he was going to do would be to drop a bomb on Israel. Luckily, the military of that country is fanatical. It went straight down into Iraq and blew up the damn thing. France has been trading with Iraq, since that point over the black market. But not just France, Germany, Russia.
So according to the list posted earlier has the UK and the USA been trading with the Iraquis. Hell those mobile food testing laboratories we recently said could be used for WMD purposes were sold to them by a BRITISH firm. That might be excusable if it was before the gulf war, which it wasn't (something like 3 years ago). So it isn't.
I think I recall the notion that in the 1980's everyone including Israel was trading with Iraq with weapons and spare parts. So again, we're being utterly biased. But of course we were helping fight a tyrant in Iran, we all know that don't we, whereas france was simply being mercenary, we all know that don't we? *rolls eyes*
Quote:
But France was far more vocal on not attacking Iraq giving a bunch of bull**** reasons on why it shouldn't be done. It's clear that they don't want to lose cheap oil over the black market. But after we won the war and the regime was defeated, France completely changes sides and declares victory in a war to which they were opposed and gave no aid to fight. I think this is the main thing that makes France stand out as a backstabber, since we have traditionally been allies over the past 100 years or so.
Eh? Allies fight immediately when their ally is invaded, not sit around for 2 years. I agree their stance has at times been slightly suspect and very hypocritical, but why this opens them up for criticism oin a totally unrelated period of their history is anyone's guess.
[qupte]Germany and Russia especially haven't been allies to us for quite some time, so such actions are taken less personal than those of France.
Germany has been an ally in some form for 60 years actually.
Quote:
Would you be more upset at one of your friends if they did something behind your back or someone you don't know very well with a suspect history of relations between the both of you.
You are of course assuming that you yourself are totally innocent and never betray friends. America and britain I find are barely any more moral in their history and politics than France. And if you really want to get pedantic and drag WWII into the equation, I think you could say a friendship might just have been considered to have been severed when the british fired on their ships in port and abbandonned france to the tender mercies of Hitler in 1940.
As for a suspect history of relations, you really are forgetting who helped you fight the British in your revolution aren't you?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for a suspect history of relations, you really are forgetting who helped you fight the British in your revolution aren't you?
I think this is a prime example of "that was then, this is now".
People change you know...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 05:40 PM |
|
|
You could say the same about WWII, but people seem to want to use that as an argument too........
Besides he said history of relations, does he mean recent history or distant history, and if either how far back? You might not like the actions of france recently, personally I didn't like all of them either, but we're being a little blinkered if we're suggesting that they are the only one of the western nations to do such actions....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 05:47 PM |
|
|
Oh, if only international relations operated on anything so simple and straightforward as the principles of personal friendships.... IF ONLY....
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 05:53 PM |
|
|
Never happen, politicians aren't human you see, power corrupts after all.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 05:06 AM |
|
|
Yes, power corrupts. If it didn't and everyone was perfect, we would all be communist.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 11, 2003 03:20 PM |
|
|
Message From Karl...
Quote:
Yes, power corrupts. If it didn't and everyone was perfect, we would all be communist.
Wolfman, Karl Marx wanted me to tell you that he likes the way you think. 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 04:28 PM |
|
|
Khayman's begining to worry me, he talks to the dead now 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
