The most anti-American country?

Dom

Both wars were/are to destroy WMD. We did in the first time we've yet to find any to destroy now.

Even US Gulf War Vets call this Gulf War 2...

Edit: Spelling corrected due to criticism from BWX232

BWX

That was their motto LONG before the head of the military used it the other day in the press conference. Makes you wonder why he used those exact words when describing how news should be reported. You think he might be saying that a certain news station w/ that motto might be the more accurate one?

Dom

How in the hell can they have 'em soon if the coalition troops controll most of the country?

Dom

I'm talking about you quoting the station. nothing else.

BWX

You think the first GULF war was to drive out a country attacking another. These wars are not the same- not in the least.

And if it was a GOLF war, we would be hitting each other over the head with 9-irons and 3-woods. LOL

BWX

I will keep this spot bookmarked so when they find WMD I can come back and prove you wrong. We don't control the whole country yet- even if we did it is a huge place, our goals righ tnow are to win a war, not find WMD- there will be time for that later, everything found now is just by chance

Dom

Wow, I misspelled a word! Not that I'd expect anything less from the likes of you. People often criticize other people when they are lossing debates.

Dom

Make sure to bookmark all my responses to this thread. I never once said Iraq DIDN'T have WMD. I said there is no evidence as of yet.

BWX

You must have missed the quote made by Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked by a reporter how the war should be reported, he said all we ask is that the news be reported in a "fair and balanced" way. Funny it just happens to be Fox News channels's motto. LOL- I thought you were talking about that quote-

BWX

It was a joke, If you want, I will criticize you about "lossing" the debate. lol

ToshiroOC

I know you people would find this interesting "Conversational Terrorism"

Dom

Once again... You respond to a typo, but no responses to the serious posts. If you have nothing constructive to add...the don't add anything.

Falstaff

you know, a pathological response to a signal or stress, ha ha

GoHack

One thing to point out about the US, is that we are made up of every nationality, and religion, on this planet, and yes, even the French too. Our success as a nation, I'm sure, has a lot to do w/that diversity. No other nation can lay claim, not even remotely, to that.

I myself, am made up of several nationalities, primarily English, Native American, and even a little French Canadian.

Our views are made up of an assortment of ideas from many nationalities. We have some who were, in all essence, rejects or outcasts of other nations, who came here, only to become successful. People come here to do and be something that is virtually impossible in their native homelands. Even the French come here to become successful. There are French companies, slowly moving out of France to the US, because of the better work turnout, as well as quality. We work here, on average, 50 weeks a year, 40+ hrs a week. Everyone seems to be always on strike in France. One wonders how they can ever get anything done over there.

The issue that bothers me here, thanks to the Europeans, is our slowly moving towards socialism, and it's guaranteed problems and costs.

Falstaff

My history teachers were quick to point out that Roosevelt was a socialist and a president at the same time, I didn't agree then, but now I am not so sure...but it worked, and it got American off it's feet during the depression.

Vampyromaniac

OK, let me get all the way in. Are you saying that you think this was going on in France's mind:
"Some people want to have a war with Saddam, but we like the guy, so let's veto," or something to that effect?Yes, the scenario is a possibility, but it seems as though you have been stating it as a CERTAINTY this whole time. If you back off and admit it is merely a possibility, and only your opinion, I understand. But that's not how is has been sounding so far.

And when you say "Don't think for a second I came up with this on my own, . . . there are many who feel the same . . ." , . . . that doesn't really give your position any validity, . . . there are many things which large groups of people think the same way about, . . . but they're still not correct. So, proof is still needed, or else it's still only one of many possibilities

BWX

Ok, let me tell you why I am in no way losing a debate with you.

Here is your post:


1)-quote by me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BWX232
They (France) basically undermined our good-hearted effort to bring down a brutal dictator w/ WMD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


your response:
"No WMD have been found." [color=pink]*DRIVE BY STATEMENT*

Here is why-
What does one have to do with the other? First you say that, then later on you say "I never once said Iraq DIDN'T have WMD." Well guess what, it doesn't change the fact that France blocked every diplomatic effort by the US to dissarm Saddam. Even if this was a valid argument to what I said, which it is not, you are basing your argument on unknown facts. So you aren't dissagreeing with me, you are just saying something that has nothing to do with my point and saying "I am winning the debate"-- yeah, ok[/color]


2)-quote by me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did help Saddam, if it wasn't for them the pressure from a UNITED United Nations we have avoided this war altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR response:
"America helped Saddam in the Iranian war." [color=yellow]*so what- unrelated*

Again, so what? I was hypothesizing about what might have happened if France didn't block our diplomatic efforts-- and you say "we helped saddam in the Iranian war" What does that have to do with it? Again you did not disagree with me, you just pull something out of the air and claim to be "winning the debate" How can you be debating me if you aren't even disagreeing with me? I say a sentence with the word "war" in it, so you say a sentence with the word "war" in it and claim to be winning a debate?? It's as if I have to dissect every sentence I say or you just make a comment unrelated and think you are saying something. Tell me why you disagree with my original statement or YOU don't respond.[/color]

3)-quote by me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With pressure from the whole world, Saddam may have been more willing to comply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It didn't in the first Golf War, why would this have been different?" [color=green]this is*unrelated*

Umm, "It didn't in the first Golf War, why would this have been different?" How is this statement relevant? What does it have t do with what I said? The first gulf war was under TOTALLY different circumstances and had completely different objectives. Saddam was invading a country, you say "it didn't the first time"- A little general don't you think? Oh you proved me wrong that time! HARDLY- what are you even talking about? Such a broad and generic statement and you think you are "winning the debate" WHATEVER[/color]


If you can't take a joke about using the word "Golf" in the Gulf war, maybe you are a little too sensitive to be arguing with me. It wasn't even an insult, just a light hearted joke, and you get all offended. Then accuse me of not saying anything constructive. Then you say I am losing the debate- LOL- I have just proven to you your responses to my post aren't even dissagreements, just generalized statements having almost nothing to do with the points I made.

BWX

I need proof for a hypothesis?? Tell that to Albert Einstein. You asked me why I thought that France wasn't worth having as an ally. I told you why I THINK that. Now you want PROOF? Dude. What are you talking about.
Instead of that, I will ask you. Why do you think they are?



Tell me why France is so great.




I Think France does not care about how bad Saddam is, as long as Saddam buys France's weapons and France can buy Saddams OIL. I think the French leaders care nothing about the Iraqi people living under a brutal dictator, as long as their bank accounts get bigger, they don't care. They have no morals, they make money from a dictator who tortures his citizens (among other things) and wastes their money on lavish palaces while his people starve.

Now that we are going to take out Saddams regime, no more money for france, Germany, and Russia FROM Iraq. THAT is why they blocked us diplomatically, do you have any other better theories? Do you think it is really because they have some moral highground when it comes to war? NO they don't - they care about 2 things, MONEY AND POWER, and they don't care how many iraqi people have to suffer for them to get more MONEY AND POWER.

I am sure everyone will quote this paragraph and tell me to prove it. Just trying to make me prove everything I think isn't proving any of your own personal views on the subject.




Why should we trust France??

BWX

I wasn't responding to your TYPO I was responding to your post and put your typo in quotes. Your post was in response to a post that I joked about a typo. Don't get confused now.

Main point- "You respond to a typo" IS FALSE.

next?

Dom

I never said you were loosing the debate, it was just a joke...don't take it so hard.

Making a fun of someone, even if it's light hearted is not constructive, as it has nothing to do with this issue.

Let me ask you something, was your "light hearted joke" relevent at all to this debate?

Dom

How does saying "It was a joke, If you want, I will criticize you about "lossing" the debate. lol " a response to anything remotely related to my post?

Vampyromaniac