[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’d take a bullet for him.[/quote]
Where?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’d take a bullet for him.
Where?[/quote]
In the bo-bo.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’d take a bullet for him.
Where?[/quote]
In France, the States, anywhere. He’s the type of leader we need, someone who understands what America is all about.
I know that you probably meant where on my body. Hopefully not in the balls or my HCG injections were a waste!!
Thats the intelligence/education of a texan bush voter…
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
He’s the President of France. How is that not French?
Is “Sarko l’Americain” supposed to be an insult?
Coming from a country full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys - I think it is hilarious.
Thats the intelligence/education of a texan bush voter…
[/quote]
Having a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence. Yours appears to be lacking…
So when will we be seeing French troops in Iraq and Iran? If this man is so “pro-Bush policy” like all us lefties “fear”, he’ll most certainly be dedicating Frances full war efforts to the cause. Right?
Are they not doing enough to help our effort in Afghanastan? Plus, I think he’s dedicating them to some pre-emption in Africa right now.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So when will we be seeing French troops in Iraq and Iran? If this man is so “pro-Bush policy” like all us lefties “fear”, he’ll most certainly be dedicating Frances full war efforts to the cause. Right?[/quote]
Beowolf,
First of all, please indicate in advance exactly what it will take for you to eat your words. Is it ground troops, logistical support, naval forces?
Please be very specific.
Second, there are many of us who feel that the Iraq War could have been avoided if some major players didn’t allow their bribes and business interests to get in the way of doing the right thing.
The dictator understood force. Had the Security Council stood together with force, saddam would have backed down and allowed unfettered inspections.
He had only to look back to his miscalculation of 1991.
JeffR
P.S. It must be painful for you lefties and your predictions of doom and gloom to see the rise of this guy.
[quote]Valentinius wrote:
Are they not doing enough to help our effort in Afghanastan? Plus, I think he’s dedicating them to some pre-emption in Africa right now.[/quote]
Valentinius,
Many of us were relieved and pleased to see this President essentially apologize for the bad behavior of his predecessor.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So when will we be seeing French troops in Iraq and Iran? If this man is so “pro-Bush policy” like all us lefties “fear”, he’ll most certainly be dedicating Frances full war efforts to the cause. Right?
Beowolf,
First of all, please indicate in advance exactly what it will take for you to eat your words. Is it ground troops, logistical support, naval forces?
Please be very specific.
Second, there are many of us who feel that the Iraq War could have been avoided if some major players didn’t allow their bribes and business interests to get in the way of doing the right thing.
The dictator understood force. Had the Security Council stood together with force, saddam would have backed down and allowed unfettered inspections.
He had only to look back to his miscalculation of 1991.
JeffR
P.S. It must be painful for you lefties and your predictions of doom and gloom to see the rise of this guy.
[/quote]
I’ll eat em when the French army mobilizes, and they get a declaration of war.
I’m almost positive I remember the other candidate being much more pro-Iran-attack…
The UN might have taken a stand, by the way, if we had had a little patience. Apparently, we need to have patience to see results in the Iraq war, but not from the UN. Personally, I think the UN works a bit slower than a military operation in which we outnumber our enemies and overpower them so greatly.
Predictions of doom and gloom? All I said was that Bush did not mobilize an international force and is making us look like bullies and imperialists in the international community. Had he gotten a true coalition and sent peace keepers on a non-military mission I would have had much less to say against intervention in Iraq.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Valentinius,
Many of us were relieved and pleased to see this President essentially apologize for the bad behavior of his predecessor.
JeffR
[/quote]
I was as well. Chirac was stupid to ignore and slight the United States the way he did. I like Sarcozy. A lot. He was my favorite of the candidates. But I just don’t see him as the type to support our interventionist policy in the Middle East.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So when will we be seeing French troops in Iraq and Iran? If this man is so “pro-Bush policy” like all us lefties “fear”, he’ll most certainly be dedicating Frances full war efforts to the cause. Right?
Beowolf,
First of all, please indicate in advance exactly what it will take for you to eat your words. Is it ground troops, logistical support, naval forces?
Please be very specific.
Second, there are many of us who feel that the Iraq War could have been avoided if some major players didn’t allow their bribes and business interests to get in the way of doing the right thing.
The dictator understood force. Had the Security Council stood together with force, saddam would have backed down and allowed unfettered inspections.
He had only to look back to his miscalculation of 1991.
JeffR
P.S. It must be painful for you lefties and your predictions of doom and gloom to see the rise of this guy.
I’ll eat em when the French army mobilizes, and they get a declaration of war.
I’m almost positive I remember the other candidate being much more pro-Iran-attack…
The UN might have taken a stand, by the way, if we had had a little patience. Apparently, we need to have patience to see results in the Iraq war, but not from the UN. Personally, I think the UN works a bit slower than a military operation in which we outnumber our enemies and overpower them so greatly.
Predictions of doom and gloom? All I said was that Bush did not mobilize an international force and is making us look like bullies and imperialists in the international community. Had he gotten a true coalition and sent peace keepers on a non-military mission I would have had much less to say against intervention in Iraq. [/quote]
Here is where diplomacy died:
“French President Jacques Chirac said Monday that “no matter what the circumstances” France will vote against a new U.S.-backed resolution currently being considered by the United Nations Security Council that would give Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a March 17 deadline to disarm or face possible military consequences.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_03-10-03.html
We could have waited for 1,000,000,000 years and france’s veto would have held.
JeffR
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Valentinius,
Many of us were relieved and pleased to see this President essentially apologize for the bad behavior of his predecessor.
JeffR
I was as well. Chirac was stupid to ignore and slight the United States the way he did. I like Sarcozy. A lot. He was my favorite of the candidates. But I just don’t see him as the type to support our interventionist policy in the Middle East.[/quote]
You mean self-defense against terrorist supporting regimes?
I disagree.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Valentinius,
Many of us were relieved and pleased to see this President essentially apologize for the bad behavior of his predecessor.
JeffR
I was as well. Chirac was stupid to ignore and slight the United States the way he did. I like Sarcozy. A lot. He was my favorite of the candidates. But I just don’t see him as the type to support our interventionist policy in the Middle East.
You mean self-defense against terrorist supporting regimes?
I disagree.
JeffR
[/quote]
Could you at least do what HH does and call it what it really is? A profit making venture to secure our economic interests.
And I could have SWORN the socialist-lady whose name escapes me (Royale perhaps?) was very much into going into a preemptive war with Iran/Iraq and Sarcozy was against that policy. Any evidence either way anyone?