I'm very impressed that you're 6'4" (I am 2" shorter), and I'll gladly accept your vegemite sandwich.
Hey, I calculated it, and I am in fact well over 6'4", and yet, let me repeat: I do not intend to use physical violence, nor was it the intention of my post to impress you or frighten you. It is simply so that, with my height, I have never been called little by anybody I have met in person, on the contrary. Also, that vegemite sandwich originated in a post by CoD, and I'd rather it stayed there. I am NOT a violent man, merely a tall one.
Quote:
Since I happily addressed that could you please answer the question of how the US has diminished in power?
Their power diminished to the extent that it is no longer so that any plan they lay out is accepted by the world on account of it being an American plan. I am happy to see that reason and discretion seem to have so far as to be applied even to those that were exempt from it a short decade ago.
Quote:
There was no peace in Iraq before the war.
Logical fallacy, indeed.
This borders on another discussion entirely. In any case, the antipathy with Iraq's leader was not nearly as large as the media make it appear. The embargo actually strengthened Saddam's popularity. Also, the one proof of internal turmoil, causing the deaths of many, was the gassing in 1985 (!) of some 5000 Kurds. We know that the US was heavily financing Iraq in that time, as they were then involved in a war with Iran, the US' enemy of choice at that time.
Now, seeing how many people died during the US' first campaign down there, AND afterwards, either through injuries acquired during that campaign, or due to silly illnesses that could not be cured due to lack of embargoed antibiotics.
I will grant you the fact that there are arguments on either side, but I do not, for one minute, believe that the US has helped one bit with its campaigns.
They could go to the press about their kid being beaten up without the goverment fining them 4000 clams.
Hihi, you are saying that Europe has a judicial system that gets frequently abused with frivolous cases... oh wait, I thought you were speaking about Europe.
Also, Hassan, it's not exactly legalisation, but rather depenalisation, meaning you'll be able to carry around 5 to 10 grams or whatever and not be thrown in jail. No coffeeshops as of yet. And, I live about an hour's drive from very decent establishments, though I am currently in an (extended) period of sobriety when it comes to the greens.
Their power diminished to the extent that it is no longer so that any plan they lay out is accepted by the world on account of it being an American plan.
Every plan we layed out before now was "accepted by the world" simply because it was American? Are you sure?
France, Germany and Russia = the world.
Mainly just France and Russia right now.
The world.
Russia didn't like us interfering in Yugoslavia so we went through NATO instead.
We had to drag France kicking & screaming into the Gulf War 1.
Our power is obviously greatly diminished.
Quote:
This borders on another discussion entirely. In any case, the antipathy with Iraq's leader was not nearly as large as the media make it appear. The embargo actually strengthened Saddam's popularity. Also, the one proof of internal turmoil, causing the deaths of many, was the gassing in 1985 (!) of some 5000 Kurds. We know that the US was heavily financing Iraq in that time, as they were then involved in a war with Iran, the US' enemy of choice at that time.
Ok... off-topic much?
Quote:
Now, seeing how many people died during the US' first campaign down there, AND afterwards, either through injuries acquired during that campaign, or due to silly illnesses that could not be cured due to lack of embargoed antibiotics.
Ah, so that was a "US action" now? History revision is fun, isn't it?
Quote:
I will grant you the fact that there are arguments on either side, but I do not, for one minute, believe that the US has helped one bit with its campaigns.
US campaigns. Not Un campaigns or embargoes, they are US ones now.
Rewrite those history books, der Kopf, rewrite those history books.
Would you care to back that up? You and others have posted it before, but more recently I've read otherwise.
Surely.
French president Mitterand wanted to negotiate diplomatically at first, even after Saddam refused to leave and similar to now Saddam's regime smiled quite broadly at France's, shall we say, "diplomatic" attitude.
He later admitted to only joining up to get in on the "Club des Grands", not out of any idealistic similarities.
After the war France continued to show it's diconnect with the US/UK view by proposing a lift of sanctions and a reparations scheme so harsh it rivaled the one placed on Germany after World War I.
France didn't exactly hop on board to forcibly remove Iraq from Kuwait, perhaps not "kicking and screaming" but certainly not enthused or eager.
Just repeating the question, in case you didn't see my question.
I think it's funny that you petulantly demand answers to everything you ask and say but so eagerly ignore the bulk of my posts.
I don't know what freedoms you don't have that I do, and I don't really think that's the issue. I know that there is a law in France that makes it illegal to criticize the president. I know that 2 parents in France were just fined for speaking out.
I also know that those two things would never happen in the US.
I don't know much about Belgian law (other than the claim to "universal jurisdiction") and I don't really care.
It's just that France's official position is that they were 100% behind the first war. I'm sure they were slower to come around but they didn't veto and if I remember correctly they did supply troops (as well as in Afghanistan.)
I think it's funny that you petulantly demand answers to everything you ask and say but so eagerly ignore the bulk of my posts.
I don't know what freedoms you don't have that I do, and I don't really think that's the issue. I know that there is a law in France that makes it illegal to criticize the president. I know that 2 parents in France were just fined for speaking out.
I also know that those two things would never happen in the US.
I don't know much about Belgian law (other than the claim to "universal jurisdiction") and I don't really care.
Okay.
1) What bulk have I ignored? I painstakingly refute every single point you make, ever.
2) What French law is that? Are you familiar with Bush's closing-of-critical-websites spree? Are you aware of his pert little 'limits to freedom' speech? Are you intent on sticking with your simplistic one-line view of the case? You are saying that there is no 'defamation of character' law in the US?
3) You don't know much about Belgian law: how's about you no longer make claims as to the freedoms it DOESN'T give me?
The tabloid's controversial stance breaks a French law that makes it a criminal offence to insult the president. Breaking the law carries a fine up 45,000 euros.
This assuming that the Guardian isn't a right-wing anti-French rag.
Quote:
Are you familiar with Bush's closing-of-critical-websites spree?
Nope, when was that?
Quote:
Are you aware of his pert little 'limits to freedom' speech?
Do enlighten me.
Quote:
Are you intent on sticking with your simplistic one-line view of the case? You are saying that there is no 'defamation of character' law in the US?
There is defamation of character law in the US, but it's extremely hard to win and damned near impossible to lose one to a famous plaintiff. There sure as hell isn't any law against criticizing or insulting the president.
Quote:
3) You don't know much about Belgian law: how's about you no longer make claims as to the freedoms it DOESN'T give me?
The tabloid's controversial stance breaks a French law that makes it a criminal offence to insult the president. Breaking the law carries a fine up 45,000 euros.
T
This was already discussed in a another thread, the guardian was not finned for this. This is an old law never employed.
The french president is criticized every week in the press. And there is a huge satyric press in France. I can say Jacques Chirac est un ver (Jacques Chirac is a worm) i will not be finned for this.
However there is a law in US (pardon me if i am wrong) that do not allow to burn the US flag in public. This law is there to respect the nation. A law that do not allow to insult the president has the same meaning. A bad law will be a law that will forbidden to criticize the president. These law is unconstitutional and against any basic rules of any democratia.
AAAAAAND it's America vs. Europe, round 491, seconds away, ding ding.
RAHRAHRAH American cars are SHIT!
RAHRAHRAH Europeans pay too much TAX!
RAHRAHRAH American chocolate tastes like VOMIT! (ouch!)
RAHRAHRAH French films are BORING! (that's gotta hurt!)
RAHRAHRAH America eats its young!
RAHRAHRAH That's an album by Funkadelic, isn't it?
RAHRAHRAH Why, yes it is.
RAHRAHRAH I think I'm going to put it on now.
RAHRAHRAH Crikey, mind awfully if I come over and have a listen? I love Funkadelic.
RAHRAHRAH Sure! Have a crisp.
RAHRAHRAH We call them 'chips' in America!
RAHRAHRAH Well then, have a 'chip'.
Hey! you started it, and I agree, American chocolate does taste like crap. thats why I eat european chocolate(I like the flakes and Aero bars mmmm). American cars are not sh!t however, french films are boring, and as an american I only ate young women when I was single!
Hey Groverat, would you mind acting like the moderator you're supposed to be? All these little thinly veiled adhoms you always seem to resort to are quite unnecessary. From talking to others in here I know I'm not alone when I say that. If you can't support your arguments without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule maybe you should give up your moderator status to someone who can.
Hey Groverat, would you mind acting like the moderator you're supposed to be? All these little thinly veiled adhoms you always seem to resort to are quite unnecessary. From talking to others in here I know I'm not alone when I say that. If you can't support your arguments without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule maybe you should give up your moderator status to someone who can.
From the posting guidelines :
3. All comments about a moderator or an administrator should be directed to the moderator or an administrator (if the member does not feel comfortable dealing directly with the moderator) using private messaging or via e-mail.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
I'm very impressed that you're 6'4" (I am 2" shorter), and I'll gladly accept your vegemite sandwich.
Hey, I calculated it, and I am in fact well over 6'4", and yet, let me repeat: I do not intend to use physical violence, nor was it the intention of my post to impress you or frighten you. It is simply so that, with my height, I have never been called little by anybody I have met in person, on the contrary. Also, that vegemite sandwich originated in a post by CoD, and I'd rather it stayed there. I am NOT a violent man, merely a tall one.
Since I happily addressed that could you please answer the question of how the US has diminished in power?
Their power diminished to the extent that it is no longer so that any plan they lay out is accepted by the world on account of it being an American plan. I am happy to see that reason and discretion seem to have so far as to be applied even to those that were exempt from it a short decade ago.
There was no peace in Iraq before the war.
Logical fallacy, indeed.
This borders on another discussion entirely. In any case, the antipathy with Iraq's leader was not nearly as large as the media make it appear. The embargo actually strengthened Saddam's popularity. Also, the one proof of internal turmoil, causing the deaths of many, was the gassing in 1985 (!) of some 5000 Kurds. We know that the US was heavily financing Iraq in that time, as they were then involved in a war with Iran, the US' enemy of choice at that time.
Now, seeing how many people died during the US' first campaign down there, AND afterwards, either through injuries acquired during that campaign, or due to silly illnesses that could not be cured due to lack of embargoed antibiotics.
I will grant you the fact that there are arguments on either side, but I do not, for one minute, believe that the US has helped one bit with its campaigns.
could you state one freedom you have which I don't?
Originally posted by der Kopf
To both groverat and CoD, who both have stated in this thread that Europeans (Belgians, in my case) have less freedoms:
could you state one freedom you have which I don't?
They're just jealous of our high speed limits, relaxed drug laws and gay marriages.
Originally posted by der Kopf
To both groverat and CoD, who both have stated in this thread that Europeans (Belgians, in my case) have less freedoms:
could you state one freedom you have which I don't?
They could go to the press about their kid being beaten up without the goverment fining them 4000 clams.
That should take the pressure off those Dutch border town coffe shops a bit!
Originally posted by The General
They could go to the press about their kid being beaten up without the goverment fining them 4000 clams.
AAAAAAND it's America vs. Europe, round 491, seconds away, ding ding.
RAHRAHRAH American cars are SHIT!
RAHRAHRAH Europeans pay too much TAX!
RAHRAHRAH American chocolate tastes like VOMIT! (ouch!)
RAHRAHRAH French films are BORING! (that's gotta hurt!)
RAHRAHRAH America eats its young!
RAHRAHRAH That's an album by Funkadelic, isn't it?
RAHRAHRAH Why, yes it is.
RAHRAHRAH I think I'm going to put it on now.
RAHRAHRAH Crikey, mind awfully if I come over and have a listen? I love Funkadelic.
RAHRAHRAH Sure! Have a crisp.
RAHRAHRAH We call them 'chips' in America!
RAHRAHRAH Well then, have a 'chip'.
Originally posted by The General
They could go to the press about their kid being beaten up without the goverment fining them 4000 clams.
Hihi, you are saying that Europe has a judicial system that gets frequently abused with frivolous cases... oh wait, I thought you were speaking about Europe.
Also, Hassan, it's not exactly legalisation, but rather depenalisation, meaning you'll be able to carry around 5 to 10 grams or whatever and not be thrown in jail. No coffeeshops as of yet. And, I live about an hour's drive from very decent establishments, though I am currently in an (extended) period of sobriety when it comes to the greens.
Their power diminished to the extent that it is no longer so that any plan they lay out is accepted by the world on account of it being an American plan.
Every plan we layed out before now was "accepted by the world" simply because it was American? Are you sure?
France, Germany and Russia = the world.
Mainly just France and Russia right now.
The world.
Russia didn't like us interfering in Yugoslavia so we went through NATO instead.
We had to drag France kicking & screaming into the Gulf War 1.
Our power is obviously greatly diminished.
This borders on another discussion entirely. In any case, the antipathy with Iraq's leader was not nearly as large as the media make it appear. The embargo actually strengthened Saddam's popularity. Also, the one proof of internal turmoil, causing the deaths of many, was the gassing in 1985 (!) of some 5000 Kurds. We know that the US was heavily financing Iraq in that time, as they were then involved in a war with Iran, the US' enemy of choice at that time.
Ok... off-topic much?
Now, seeing how many people died during the US' first campaign down there, AND afterwards, either through injuries acquired during that campaign, or due to silly illnesses that could not be cured due to lack of embargoed antibiotics.
Ah, so that was a "US action" now? History revision is fun, isn't it?
I will grant you the fact that there are arguments on either side, but I do not, for one minute, believe that the US has helped one bit with its campaigns.
US campaigns. Not Un campaigns or embargoes, they are US ones now.
Rewrite those history books, der Kopf, rewrite those history books.
Originally posted by groverat
Our power is obviously greatly diminished.
Finally an unconditional admission out of groverat.
Originally posted by groverat
We had to drag France kicking & screaming into the Gulf War 1.
Would you care to back that up? You and others have posted it before, but more recently I've read otherwise.
Originally posted by der Kopf
To both groverat and CoD, who both have stated in this thread that Europeans (Belgians, in my case) have less freedoms:
could you state one freedom you have which I don't?
Just repeating the question, in case you didn't see my question.
Originally posted by bunge
Would you care to back that up? You and others have posted it before, but more recently I've read otherwise.
Surely.
French president Mitterand wanted to negotiate diplomatically at first, even after Saddam refused to leave and similar to now Saddam's regime smiled quite broadly at France's, shall we say, "diplomatic" attitude.
He later admitted to only joining up to get in on the "Club des Grands", not out of any idealistic similarities.
After the war France continued to show it's diconnect with the US/UK view by proposing a lift of sanctions and a reparations scheme so harsh it rivaled the one placed on Germany after World War I.
France didn't exactly hop on board to forcibly remove Iraq from Kuwait, perhaps not "kicking and screaming" but certainly not enthused or eager.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Just repeating the question, in case you didn't see my question.
I think it's funny that you petulantly demand answers to everything you ask and say but so eagerly ignore the bulk of my posts.
I don't know what freedoms you don't have that I do, and I don't really think that's the issue. I know that there is a law in France that makes it illegal to criticize the president. I know that 2 parents in France were just fined for speaking out.
I also know that those two things would never happen in the US.
I don't know much about Belgian law (other than the claim to "universal jurisdiction") and I don't really care.
Originally posted by groverat
Surely.
...
It's just that France's official position is that they were 100% behind the first war. I'm sure they were slower to come around but they didn't veto and if I remember correctly they did supply troops (as well as in Afghanistan.)
Originally posted by groverat
I think it's funny that you petulantly demand answers to everything you ask and say but so eagerly ignore the bulk of my posts.
I don't know what freedoms you don't have that I do, and I don't really think that's the issue. I know that there is a law in France that makes it illegal to criticize the president. I know that 2 parents in France were just fined for speaking out.
I also know that those two things would never happen in the US.
I don't know much about Belgian law (other than the claim to "universal jurisdiction") and I don't really care.
Okay.
1) What bulk have I ignored? I painstakingly refute every single point you make, ever.
2) What French law is that? Are you familiar with Bush's closing-of-critical-websites spree? Are you aware of his pert little 'limits to freedom' speech? Are you intent on sticking with your simplistic one-line view of the case? You are saying that there is no 'defamation of character' law in the US?
3) You don't know much about Belgian law: how's about you no longer make claims as to the freedoms it DOESN'T give me?
1) What bulk have I ignored? I painstakingly refute every single point you make, ever.
You do?
Odd, because I haven't seen answers to the following questions:
Every plan we layed out before now was "accepted by the world" simply because it was American? Are you sure?
Ah, so that was a "US action" now?
You haven't addressed my refutation of your ridiculous assertion that if everyone had equal power the world would be safer.
Or that the US is not diminishing in power.
Or any real address to my rebuttal of your silly idea that this war interrupts "peace" in Iraq.
Very painstaking!
[b] 2) What French law is that?
click
The tabloid's controversial stance breaks a French law that makes it a criminal offence to insult the president. Breaking the law carries a fine up 45,000 euros.
This assuming that the Guardian isn't a right-wing anti-French rag.
Are you familiar with Bush's closing-of-critical-websites spree?
Nope, when was that?
Are you aware of his pert little 'limits to freedom' speech?
Do enlighten me.
Are you intent on sticking with your simplistic one-line view of the case? You are saying that there is no 'defamation of character' law in the US?
There is defamation of character law in the US, but it's extremely hard to win and damned near impossible to lose one to a famous plaintiff. There sure as hell isn't any law against criticizing or insulting the president.
3) You don't know much about Belgian law: how's about you no longer make claims as to the freedoms it DOESN'T give me?
Did I say Belgian law was more restrictive?
Originally posted by groverat
The tabloid's controversial stance breaks a French law that makes it a criminal offence to insult the president. Breaking the law carries a fine up 45,000 euros.
T
This was already discussed in a another thread, the guardian was not finned for this. This is an old law never employed.
The french president is criticized every week in the press. And there is a huge satyric press in France. I can say Jacques Chirac est un ver (Jacques Chirac is a worm) i will not be finned for this.
However there is a law in US (pardon me if i am wrong) that do not allow to burn the US flag in public. This law is there to respect the nation. A law that do not allow to insult the president has the same meaning. A bad law will be a law that will forbidden to criticize the president. These law is unconstitutional and against any basic rules of any democratia.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
AAAAAAND it's America vs. Europe, round 491, seconds away, ding ding.
RAHRAHRAH American cars are SHIT!
RAHRAHRAH Europeans pay too much TAX!
RAHRAHRAH American chocolate tastes like VOMIT! (ouch!)
RAHRAHRAH French films are BORING! (that's gotta hurt!)
RAHRAHRAH America eats its young!
RAHRAHRAH That's an album by Funkadelic, isn't it?
RAHRAHRAH Why, yes it is.
RAHRAHRAH I think I'm going to put it on now.
RAHRAHRAH Crikey, mind awfully if I come over and have a listen? I love Funkadelic.
RAHRAHRAH Sure! Have a crisp.
RAHRAHRAH We call them 'chips' in America!
RAHRAHRAH Well then, have a 'chip'.
Hey! you started it, and I agree, American chocolate does taste like crap. thats why I eat european chocolate(I like the flakes and Aero bars mmmm). American cars are not sh!t however, french films are boring, and as an american I only ate young women when I was single!
Originally posted by Gilsch
Hey Groverat, would you mind acting like the moderator you're supposed to be? All these little thinly veiled adhoms you always seem to resort to are quite unnecessary. From talking to others in here I know I'm not alone when I say that. If you can't support your arguments without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule maybe you should give up your moderator status to someone who can.
From the posting guidelines :
3. All comments about a moderator or an administrator should be directed to the moderator or an administrator (if the member does not feel comfortable dealing directly with the moderator) using private messaging or via e-mail.