[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>Powerdoc, I don't ask this in a rude way but I am just curious. When Chirac speaks does he ever look still ahead or does he always look up, left, right, down, roll his eyes shift to the left, then up again. etc. etc.
I have seen footage of him in several interviews, press, etc and he looks like he can not look one direction for more than a split second.
He almost comes across as a drunk who tries to appear as though he is not. Again just my observation. I was curious as to your thought on this.
Many talk about the traits of Bush etc. Speaking ability and all.
I just have noticed with more attention given to Chirac lately that every time I see him on television in different places he has a terrible time looking straight ahead. He moves his head around so much he must get sea sick.
You are more familiar with him what is your take on this?
Hey, Groverat this sentance was a joke, like these line who followed it immediatly : (however if Bush could change the ugly faces of Saddam it will be great, may i suggest the explosive face lift ? ) .
Being the plastic surgeon of the world means nothing
Just to add an opinion from the Antipodes, I recall that the topic here was will the UN get its 9 votes? Or maybe the question here is "how much money is the US prepared to shell out to ensure it gets its 9 votes" The leaders of Cameroon and Chile have been on the Tele saying that they have fundamental differences of opinion with the US stance, and do not intend to support it. Ok, maybe ambiguous enough to read that if the US comes through with a deal good enough for them that they might just change their minds.
There are a lot of side issues going on here, like what the **** is France up to, what the **** is the US up to for that matter, it would seem that the US claim that Iraq is a threat is pretty laughable, come on, what the hell are a few al-somoud missiles going to do? Saddam knows that if he was turn on one of his neighbours, almost overy other country on earth would support turning iraq into a big hole in the ground. The US administration has made the most tenuous of links between Iraq and Terroism, with many leaders openly expressing the view that going after saddam may just turn the region into a spawning ground for new terrorists. Would that not be the far greater evil than to contain Saddam, like we have for the past 12 years? It is a very real threat, and if the region spins out of control, there will be little that the US can do to contain it then.
I cant work out the logic behind it, and neither it seems can most other countries who are not willing to be bought off by the US. Is France busy exploiting this - you bet.
[quote]<strong>I do not see anything particular. However french and generally latin people tend to move their arms and their corpses, more than english or US people.
I think it's the reason why you finded this so strange.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In America (and most likely England) we use the word "corpses" to refer to the bodies of dead people. So when you say "they move their corpses" you're saying "they move their dead bodies".
When you're talking about living people just say "body". So it should be "... their arms and their bodies..." not "... their arms and their corpses..."
<strong>Between logical and sane men and states the UN is very effective. Dealing with terrorists or madmen, the UN is not effective because it moves slower than a snail and relies on ambiguous diplomacy.
In some situations it is best not to ask the UN. I don't look at the UN as the ultimate authority in the world and in that I question a great deal about the UN. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN is not very effective, you're right. This is a problem that needs to be fixed though. The US was/is in a great spot to do it too.
Realistically, we're the only country that can do it. Because if we don't, it'll never happen. But the Security Council needs some reform to help it work faster & better.
So, even if we don't attack, Iraq isn't going to hurt a fly even in the next 5 years. We really should be using our prominence in world affairs to work towards fixing it, not destroying its credibility. By attacking outside of the UN, we're going to damage the UN. And although it's not perfect, it is the only long term solution for the planet.
So, as I've said before, if Bush is intent on doing long term damage to the UN under these circumstances, I'll spite his name until the day a nuclear bomb goes off in some big city.
If the UN isn't the ultimate authority for international affairs, what is? And even though/if it's not, ultimately it should be. It has to be. Otherwise some individual superpower (like the US) will just be a global dictator. That means target for all of the world agnst.
There's time to spare with Iraq. In a perfect world the UN would have acted more forcibly long ago. We should be using this grace period (the time between now and when Iraq could actually be a threat) to mold the UN into an establishment that would have handled the Iraq situation better from the onset. That way, the next 'Iraq' that comes along has a stronger UN to deal with and that situation won't get out of hand like Iraq is now.
In America (and most likely England) we use the word "corpses" to refer to the bodies of dead people. So when you say "they move their corpses" you're saying "they move their dead bodies".
When you're talking about living people just say "body". So it should be "... their arms and their bodies..." not "... their arms and their corpses..."
Pretty funny to read anyway. heheh </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Thanks for the info Groverat.
Comments
<strong>Powerdoc, I don't ask this in a rude way but I am just curious. When Chirac speaks does he ever look still ahead or does he always look up, left, right, down, roll his eyes shift to the left, then up again. etc. etc.
I have seen footage of him in several interviews, press, etc and he looks like he can not look one direction for more than a split second.
He almost comes across as a drunk who tries to appear as though he is not. Again just my observation. I was curious as to your thought on this.
Many talk about the traits of Bush etc. Speaking ability and all.
I just have noticed with more attention given to Chirac lately that every time I see him on television in different places he has a terrible time looking straight ahead. He moves his head around so much he must get sea sick.
You are more familiar with him what is your take on this?
Fellowship
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not see anything particular. However french and generally latin people tend to move their arms and their corpses, more than english or US people.
I think it's the reason why you finded this so strange.
<strong>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that US is the plastic surgeon of the world ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, Groverat this sentance was a joke, like these line who followed it immediatly : (however if Bush could change the ugly faces of Saddam it will be great, may i suggest the explosive face lift ? )
Being the plastic surgeon of the world means nothing
There are a lot of side issues going on here, like what the **** is France up to, what the **** is the US up to for that matter, it would seem that the US claim that Iraq is a threat is pretty laughable, come on, what the hell are a few al-somoud missiles going to do? Saddam knows that if he was turn on one of his neighbours, almost overy other country on earth would support turning iraq into a big hole in the ground. The US administration has made the most tenuous of links between Iraq and Terroism, with many leaders openly expressing the view that going after saddam may just turn the region into a spawning ground for new terrorists. Would that not be the far greater evil than to contain Saddam, like we have for the past 12 years? It is a very real threat, and if the region spins out of control, there will be little that the US can do to contain it then.
I cant work out the logic behind it, and neither it seems can most other countries who are not willing to be bought off by the US. Is France busy exploiting this - you bet.
[quote]<strong>I do not see anything particular. However french and generally latin people tend to move their arms and their corpses, more than english or US people.
I think it's the reason why you finded this so strange.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In America (and most likely England) we use the word "corpses" to refer to the bodies of dead people. So when you say "they move their corpses" you're saying "they move their dead bodies".
When you're talking about living people just say "body". So it should be "... their arms and their bodies..." not "... their arms and their corpses..."
Pretty funny to read anyway. heheh
<strong>Between logical and sane men and states the UN is very effective. Dealing with terrorists or madmen, the UN is not effective because it moves slower than a snail and relies on ambiguous diplomacy.
In some situations it is best not to ask the UN. I don't look at the UN as the ultimate authority in the world and in that I question a great deal about the UN. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN is not very effective, you're right. This is a problem that needs to be fixed though. The US was/is in a great spot to do it too.
Realistically, we're the only country that can do it. Because if we don't, it'll never happen. But the Security Council needs some reform to help it work faster & better.
So, even if we don't attack, Iraq isn't going to hurt a fly even in the next 5 years. We really should be using our prominence in world affairs to work towards fixing it, not destroying its credibility. By attacking outside of the UN, we're going to damage the UN. And although it's not perfect, it is the only long term solution for the planet.
So, as I've said before, if Bush is intent on doing long term damage to the UN under these circumstances, I'll spite his name until the day a nuclear bomb goes off in some big city.
If the UN isn't the ultimate authority for international affairs, what is? And even though/if it's not, ultimately it should be. It has to be. Otherwise some individual superpower (like the US) will just be a global dictator. That means target for all of the world agnst.
There's time to spare with Iraq. In a perfect world the UN would have acted more forcibly long ago. We should be using this grace period (the time between now and when Iraq could actually be a threat) to mold the UN into an establishment that would have handled the Iraq situation better from the onset. That way, the next 'Iraq' that comes along has a stronger UN to deal with and that situation won't get out of hand like Iraq is now.
<strong>powerdoc:
In America (and most likely England) we use the word "corpses" to refer to the bodies of dead people. So when you say "they move their corpses" you're saying "they move their dead bodies".
When you're talking about living people just say "body". So it should be "... their arms and their bodies..." not "... their arms and their corpses..."
Pretty funny to read anyway. heheh
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Thanks for the info Groverat.