Rules
Terms of Use

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#171310 - Thu May 08 2003 02:12 AM In defence of France
Islingtonian Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu May 16 2002
Posts: 403
Loc: Er, Islington.
London, UK
A number of recent posts have been very negative about France. While I think it's fair enough to criticise particular politicians, France is a wonderful country, and doesn't deserve some of the insults that have been heaped upon it. I lived there for 2 years, found the French friendly and welcoming, the food and wine wonderful, and the countryside among the most beautiful in Europe. Also, I think we should respect a country that has the nerve to form its own view on international events (whether you agree with that view or not) and stick to it, even if its commercial interests are harmed as a result, something that Britain seems incapable of these days.

There was a thread a while back entitled "Sick of Anti-American Attitudes", which brought out some good points about not tainting a whole country with your views on a few of its inhabitants. Those points have a wider application.

Top
#171311 - Thu May 08 2003 03:35 AM Re: In defence of France
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
Islingtonian your post is indeed fair comment.At this moment in time there is alot of "French bashing"[I was tempted to post about it myself],but I think it will pass fairly quickly.I believe most of the posts about France were tongue in cheek and some just having a shot at France to stir them up a bit[Australian pastime],some people have/had serious problems with the French governments stance on the Iraq war and feel/felt that it threatened their national safety but now that that particular war is over I think most people will go back to their previous thoughts about France.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#171312 - Thu May 08 2003 04:26 AM Re: In defence of France
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
As quite possibly the second largest culprit in this alleged "French bashing" I would like to point out that I can't recall seeing any French bashing per-se on these boards. What I have seen is quite a bit of Chirac bashing, which is something else entirely, and some tongue-in-cheek remarks aimed at the French. Some of us have serious issues with a lot of what is going on in France right now, and I imagine some of our attitudes may show through in some of our comments, but as far as I remember I haven't seen any overt derivative statements aimed at France or its inhabitants. If I have made any such comments I'd like to know, so that I can avoid them in the future.
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#171313 - Thu May 08 2003 07:28 AM Re: In defence of France
Bertho Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Fri Oct 04 2002
Posts: 974
Loc: Queensland Australia
Does this mean that throwing cows and assorted livestock from the tower of a Welsh castle doesn't count as 'bashing?' Great, I'm clear.

I should get back to bashing seppos anyway. I heard they poo poo'd our table wine. It was compared to a really nice vintage of lighter fluid. Harsh words. I've tried American beer guys... you've got nothing!


Top
#171314 - Thu May 08 2003 08:55 AM Re: In defence of France
fjohn Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Dec 06 1999
Posts: 2742
Loc: Wyoming USA Way Out West
I've never been to Europe, but would like to visit some day. I'm sure that France is all as you describe, but the anti-Franco feelings with older Americans comes from the DeGaulle era. His imperious attitude toward anything American gave us the feeling that he could have won WWII all by himself - he didn't need American help (after the war was over, of course). He kicked out the American military in about 1960, closing our bases. France has been a refuge for terrorists and militant malcontents for years. The people may be wonderful, but they also support their various governments by voting the rascals in.
France wanted to take a different direction in world politics by appeasing the despots and now they can live with their support of the United Nations decision to block American, British and Australian action in Iraq.
They are no friend to Americans.


Edited by fjohn (Fri May 09 2003 08:41 AM)
_________________________
Some days it just doesn't seem worth trying to chew through the restraints.

Top
#171315 - Thu May 08 2003 09:24 AM Re: In defence of France
Islingtonian Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu May 16 2002
Posts: 403
Loc: Er, Islington.
London, UK
That's just the sort of thing I'm talking about - equating the actions of a country's particular leaders from time to time with the characteristics of the people as a whole. I'm sure there are some American presidents that a number of US citizens would not like to take responsibility for.

Top
#171316 - Thu May 08 2003 02:17 PM Re: In defence of France
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Gee, who could the biggest culprit be? What is snm talking about?

Hard as it may be to believe, I myself have taken a swat or two at Chirac, and perhaps poked a bit of fun at his countrymen as well. I've also poked generally good-natured fun at a variety of countries and ethnicities, in quizzes and in the fora. At best one can say I've tried to spare the Danes. I think. I've made terrible fun of the big-kneed, poofta-hating, shorts-wearing, croc-wrestling, beer-quaffing Ozzies, and yet every one of them on the site knows I love them to litle bits.

Lest one think that I am a snarling Francophobe, I should make the following known:

1. This very morning, (and here I am not being tongue in cheek) I received a call from a friend of Gallic citizenship, who happened to ask for a bit of a legal favor. While one may believe that lawyers do not do "favors" for anyone, I made it clear that I would indeed oblige her. I even spoke a bit (a WEE bit) with her in her native tongue. She also complained to me that certain persons involved in her life were giving her a bit of a hard time about the "French thing" and I told her that while I hold somewhat similar beliefs in view of recent events, I thought I had always been discreet enough not to badger her about her government's policies, and she in fact agreed that this was the case. I should add that this person works for a certain world organization (not located in Brussels) of which I have been rather openly critical. Neither her ancestry nor the identity of her employer affect the relationship in any way, except perhaps positively, because:

2. Hard as it may be to believe, there is a still a bit of the Francophile left in me. It was certainly more in evidence last year, before the Iraq showdown, but its seed remains. In fact, if memory serves, someone in a position to know did very specifically allude to my Francophilia about seven or eight months ago here. How can one NOT have some regard for a country that a) beheaded a king; b) is thought to be a traditional hotbed of anticlericalism and indeed anarachy, and c) helped us win our independence from a King mentioned many times in Quizzyland as having suffered from "porphyria", whom I always thought was a female character in some lesser-known Shakespeare play?

3. That having been said, I must add that I feel no great love for Messrs. Chirac, Mitterrand, Giscard d'Estaing or DeGaulle, nor their administrations or actions on the international stage. If they do not speak for France, who does? It's not Syria. It's a democracy. They voted the bozos in! No one voted for Jacques Lacan! No one voted for Isabelle Adjani ( much though I would have liked to!). Tell me the poor Zimbabwean is not responsible for the thievery of Klepto Bob Mugabe and I agree. Say the same thing about someone who lives under democratic rule and I start to get uncomfortable.

4. And yes, as an American I take vicarious responsibility for not only the Lincolns and the Washingtons, but even for the outrightly hypocritical, like Jefferson, the bumbling, like Tyler, the crooked, like Nixon, and so on. Election idiocy or not, this Gore voter concedes that Dubya does at present speak for my nation. If this is seen as "essentialism" or some such, so be it.

Come on, Islingtonian, buck up. You only have to take responsibility for the likes of Stanley Baldwin and the iron Maiden. I get stuck with Fillmore, Grant, Arthur and BUCHANAN*, for god's sakes.



*James, not Pat. THAT far I don't go. Nor will the American electorate.

Top
#171317 - Thu May 08 2003 02:29 PM Re: In defence of France
loveoflearning Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Sun Jun 23 2002
Posts: 370
Loc: Buffalo New York USA   
A teacher at my school just got back from France, and was quick to point out upon her return that the French are wonderful people who were very nice to her. She reminded all of us that the French are not anti-American, but rather against Bush's actions.

Top
#171318 - Thu May 08 2003 03:27 PM Re: In defence of France
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Well, let's not go THAT far!

Top
#171319 - Fri May 09 2003 02:02 AM Re: In defence of France
Tielhard Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Oct 24 2002
Posts: 778
Loc: Blackpool UK
Your are responsible for Tyler? You must be like wow! really old man.

Excellent point about responsibility in a democracy though, I agree with it fully, if not perhaps with some of the examples.

However, I would suggest it is also the responsibility of the citizenry in a democracy to consider issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions. My observation is that once it became apparent that Mr. Bush (US president) was intent upon war a significant number of Americans shut down their critical facilities to ‘support the troops’ in an orgy of misplaced patriotism. This included most regrettably a continuing bout of Frog bashing and a sustained campaign of denigration against Mr. Chirac (French president) who has been arguably one of the few world leaders to take an honourable stand against the war.

Having said that, as you say, France is a democracy (just like the USA, for a given value of democracy) and France clearly supports Chirac. So if you truly believe Mr. Bush is right and Mr. Chirac is wrong it is reasonable to criticise France for its position. Unreasoning Frog bashing is however not an acceptable response however funny it may be.

_________________________
Regards, Tielhard

Top
#171320 - Fri May 09 2003 04:22 AM Re: In defence of France
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
Whilst I still feel that Islingtonians first post was fair comment and I didn`t feel the need to comment on the statement
Quote:

Also, I think we should respect a country that has the nerve to form its own view on international events (whether you agree with that view or not) and stick to it, even if its commercial interests are harmed as a result, something that Britain seems incapable of these days.



Now that Tielhard has added
Quote:

This included most regrettably a continuing bout of Frog bashing and a sustained campaign of denigration against Mr. Chirac (French president) who has been arguably one of the few world leaders to take an honourable stand against the war.



I think it`s time to remind people that the reason that the French government took a stance against military action against Iraq was simply that such action would most likely deny them a share of the Iraqi oil. Just a short quote from Prime Minister Aznar of Spain "We don`t have any material interests in Iraq,France has material interests in Iraq.Russia has material interests in Iraq.China has material interests in Iraq.We don`t have any."
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#171321 - Fri May 09 2003 06:24 AM Re: In defence of France
Tielhard Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Oct 24 2002
Posts: 778
Loc: Blackpool UK
I do feel the rebuttal to some of my comments was rather lame and ill thought out. As an intellectual exercise only we can easily turn the argument on its head, thus:

Unlike China, Russia and France, the USA had no share in Iraq's oil and its continuing belligerent attitude to Iraq was costing it money. Hence, the USA went to war with Iraq to rectify both of these problems.

If desired we could continue to eviscerate this argument. It was suggested that France's position is based on a desire for oil despite the fact it has huge nuclear and hydro capacity, easy access North Sea oil and good relations with Magrebien suppliers. Yet the USA consumes oil at a vast rate and cannot locally source all of its primary energy needs. Most of major oil suppliers loath the USA at best. Which country then would be more likely to be driven to unethical behaviour by the oil issue?

We could go on to say, if it were still necessary, that Spain cynically supported both the USA and the UK in their war for her own reasons. We might go on to suggest that she had little to loose either way. Seeing an opportunity to both disrupt the current the EU agenda being pushed by the Franco-German axis and earn a few bucks from supporting the USA who are known to pay their buckshee promptly Spain took it.

Stopping our intellectual games now. How can you seriously suggest any politico who lost it as badly as Chirac did was insincere? What of Germany and Belgium and others are they all brought off in some way?

There may be complaints that can be levelled against both Mr. Chirac and France, the rebuttal above was not one of them.

By the way I also much admire your ability to look into the minds of the French Government and know what they were thinking, most of us have to make do with deduction.
_________________________
Regards, Tielhard

Top
#171322 - Fri May 09 2003 11:42 AM Re: In defence of France
ericaC Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Tue Mar 18 2003
Posts: 309
Loc: Minnesota / Iowa USA
Quote:

This included most regrettably a continuing bout of Frog bashing and a sustained campaign of denigration against Mr. Chirac (French president) who has been arguably one of the few world leaders to take an honourable stand against the war.



It really depends on your version of "honorable." Bush has taken a LOT of heat (denigration, if you will) from many citizens around the globe for his actions, and people from other countries have no problem calling President Bush and Americans in general greedy, evil, and unwelcome. I think Chirac and the French have not come close to the level of ill-favor and hatred that Bush and Americans face in many corners of the world (some deserved, some not).
It doesn't mean I should make fun of French people, but I will not agree with Chirac's actions, and therefore cannot praise France's attitude towards the war.
_________________________
Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?

Top
#171323 - Fri May 09 2003 01:48 PM Re: In defence of France
flem-ish Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu Oct 11 2001
Posts: 319
Loc: Belgium
Yesterday I attended a conference at which 2 Belgian journalists living in New York, gave their views on the American-European "split" in recent months.
It struck me that nobody paid much attention to Chirac because
most of the people here who had their reservations about the "forthcoming war" at the time in the first place just feared a backlash in
terrorist attacks. Most of them underestimated the capacities of the American and British armies to quickly AND decisively defeat Saddam's Army. Most of them expected some kind of nuclear, chemical and biological armageddon.
"Post factum" many of them are impressed by the way it was carried out.
But it's definitely not Chirac that people looked up at in my part of Belgium.
In a week's time we are having general elections here. It's already clear now that the party that was most vociferous in opposing the war, is going to lose half of the votes it won the previous time.
What struck me in the way the two journalists answered the questions from the audience was:
1. they courageously opposed the "cheap" opinion that the war is about oil
2. they contradicted the view that president Bush is a moron.
They even stressed his role as a mediator between various tendencies within his own administration.
3. They also stressed that it would be quite wrong to think that the jewish population of New York are "warmongers".

People who I know to, usually, be very critical towards U.S.A. made the remark that after all the French intellectuals often
are excellent at theorising but produce a lot of "bla-bla" when action is needed.

What I felt there to be some consensus about among the audience was that it was in itself not a too bad thing that there had been divergent views within "the Western Alliance". And also that the position of the United Nations had been shown to be somewhat inefficent at moments real measures are needed.
The opinion was voiced that it may be good for the Middle East that not everybody in the West automatically turns a deaf ear to the demands of the Arab world.
To win a war costs blood,toil, tears and sweat.
To win the peace costs evenmore.Lots of patience, requires lots of effort will be required. And it will certainly take more than one "voice" to be listened to.
Feelings of people often are much more complicated than just a yes or a no.
Around me I see a mix of feelings: admiration for the U.S. ; fear of certain evolutions in the U.S.A.(especially the shift of power towards the Southern less liberal states); some distrust of the optimism the U.S.A. administration seems to display about the way in which "democracy" can be introduced into a country which never has known democracy.
It would also be a capital blunder for people in the U.S.A. to think that the European scepticism was limited to the countries whose governments were "against the war".
If the Spanish Government and the British Govenrments had first organised a referendum about this matter, it is very doubtful whether the population would have backed Aznar's and Blair's policies.
Too many people on both sides of the herring-pond seem to have a completely distorted view of what is really going on
atthe other side.
The advice of the two Belgian journalists was: come and visit the U.S.A. and then you will be able to judge for yourselves.
The Americans are not Martians. They are "real" people, not caricatures.
If you want to "understand" Americans, you have to talk to them.
Me myself I am just wondering whether the Internet is the sort of "communication" that is really helpful.
It's so exclusively based on "words".
For a real exchange more is required. Typewritten words don't show the doubts, the shades of meaning, the hesitations.
I always hated a certain type of "Frenchness" (their horrible
bla-bla political talks), but I do like the individual French people I really get acquainted with.
Hope this was not a too obscure "message".




Top
#171324 - Sat May 10 2003 01:41 AM Re: In defence of France
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
Well it`s regretable that some find my comments lame,but unavoidable as I prefer short posts myself,such as the following...........Total-Fina-Elf.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#171325 - Sat May 10 2003 02:32 AM Re: In defence of France
Tielhard Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Oct 24 2002
Posts: 778
Loc: Blackpool UK
How short?

"Yr. resp. meaningless"

or

"Na na na na!"

or

"Thrrrrrp!"
"
or

"qui?"

I prefer a reasoned argument myself. To return to my original post:

"I would suggest it is also the responsibility of the citizenry in a democracy to consider issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions"

One of the ways we may do this is by discussion, testing our views against those of others. If we reduce our discussions to the level where they are simply an exchange of meaningless (but short) sloganeering or ‘factoids’ presented to us by the media we have failed in our responsibilities as citizens. Short is good but not at the expense of clarity.

_________________________
Regards, Tielhard

Top
#171326 - Sat May 10 2003 05:53 AM Re: In defence of France
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Hear, hear, T. So let's hope these brief, absurd bits of "sloganeering" get quickly chucked into the dustbin of history:

"No blood for oil"
"The US Congress is Israeli-occupied territory"
"Iraq/Afghanistan/(pick conflict) will be another Vietnam."
"They don't WANT democracy"
"Zionazis"
"Bush/Hitler"
"The cabal of (Jews, snake-handlers, etc.) running the US"
"Blair is Bush's poodle"
"THEY'RE LOOTING!"
"...bombing of brown people"
"more horrible Western imperialism"
"QUAGMIRE!!!"

Top
#171327 - Sat May 10 2003 08:45 AM Re: In defence of France
flem-ish Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu Oct 11 2001
Posts: 319
Loc: Belgium
(aside)
Slogans are about as reliable in a quest for truth, as lawyers in a Court of Assizes. But they are not nearly half as amusing.

Top
#171328 - Sat May 10 2003 02:07 PM Re: In defence of France
Tielhard Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Oct 24 2002
Posts: 778
Loc: Blackpool UK
Nice riposte Coolupway. I hope you are reading this damnsuicidalroo, notice how the poster ostensibly(?) agrees with my point, keeps it short, make an alternative point AND attempts to back me into a corner. Most of the short slogans make sense too, well except for "QUAGMIRE!!!" which is about as impenetrable as "Total-Fina-Elf" and "Zionazis"? I am not sure if this means Israelis acting as Nazis or Jews who do not behave in the interest of Jews, an education please Coolupway, I suspect the former from context but I don’t know. Notice also that he gives me no opportunity whatever for another discourse on "stockings" and his feminine side.

I have only heard one of these (‘no blood for oil’)!. Clearly I come from a deprived part of the world and don’t have access to enough US news programs (any in fact).

I rather like: "They don't WANT democracy" a political koan perhaps? Certainly an invitation to think more deeply on the subject so we should at least keep that one.

We should of course keep "THEY'RE LOOTING!" and "...bombing of brown people" because they are, unless the start of the second one is "not" simple statements of fact but feel free to loose the capitals. The remaining slogans you may dispose of with my blessing though of course the issues they encapsulate may tax us for some years to come. We should also junk along with your list:

"A just war"
" Iraq is a clear and present danger to the USA" Don’t make the past/present joke you never know what the future holds.
"Mr. Bush is a man of peace"

==========================================

I was surprised by several of the comments in Flem-ish’s post but the two I would like to pick up on, if I may are:

"Most of them underestimated the capacities of the American and British armies to quickly AND decisively defeat Saddam's Army."

Is this a general perception, that the war was over unexpectedly quickly?

"The Americans are not Martians." They might just as well be, in fact to almost half the world’s population they are. The American experience is completely alien to many and America’s weapons are so far beyond those of most countries to be Science Fiction. This fracture in humanity is growing and I think that people are finding it harder to empathise across the divide.
_________________________
Regards, Tielhard

Top
#171329 - Sat May 10 2003 06:38 PM Re: In defence of France
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
I would certainly be surprised that anyone discussing this thread hasn`t knowledge of the Total-Fina-Elf contract.I would rather come to the point fast and not lose the interest of anyone bothered to read my posts by playing loose with the facts.I hardly feel that my ability to type be expressed by posting as many words as I have time for into each post I make,though I,m sure some posters find this" method" suitable to their arguments.The wrapping on the gift may look great but it doesn`t enhance anything if the gift is junk.I personally find many posts make more sense when given the "Dialectizer" treatment the following is Tielhards translated into "moron" by the Dialectizer
Quote:

Nice riposte Coolupway. GEE danks.I hope you are readigg dis damnsuicidalroo, notice duh, how de posteh ostensibly(, duh...uh...?) agrees wid my poit, keeps it short, uh, make an altehnatibe poit AND attempts t' back me into a corneh. Most of the, ERRRR, short slogans make sense too, webuhll except f' "QUAGMIRE! Doihh, COOL!! Doihh, COOL!! Doihh, COOL!" which is bou' as ipenetraggle as "Total-Fina-Elf" 'n "Zionazis", duh...uh...? I am not sure if dis means Israelis ackigg as Nazis or Dgews who do not behabe in de innerest of Dgews, duuhhhh, an educashun blease Coolupway, I suspeck the, uh uh uh, formeh from context but I don’t know. Notice also dat he gibes me no opportuty whatebeh f' anodeh discusse on "stockiggs" 'n his feminine side. I habe on heard one of dese (‘no blood f' oil’)! Doihh, COOL!. Clear I come from a depribid part of the, uh, the world 'n don’t habe access t' enough US news programs (any in fack). I radeh like: "Dey don't WANT democracy" a political koan pehhaps, duh...uh...? Cehtain an inbitashun t' dink more deep on the, ERRRR, subbuhjeck so webuh shudd at least keep dat one. Webuh shudd of cusse keep "THEY'RE LOOTING! Doihh, COOL!" 'n "...bombigg of brown peoble" cuz dey are, uh uh uh, unless the, ERRRR, start of the, ERRRR, seconb one is "not" siple statemins of fack but feel free t' loose the, errr, capitals. DOIHH!De remainigg slogans you may dispose of wid my gglessigg dough of cusse de issues dey encapsulate may tax us f' some years t' come. Gawlly!Webuh shudd also dgunk along wid your list: "A dgust war" " Iraq is a clear 'n present dangeh t' de USA" Don’t make de past/present dgoke you nebeh know what the, uh uh uh, future holds. "Mr. Duh.Bush is a man of peace" ========================================== I was surprisid by sebehal of the, errr, commins in Flem-ish’s post but the, duh uhh, two I wudd like t' pick up on, if I may are: "Most of dem undehestimatid the, errr, capacities of de Amehican 'n British armies t' kick AND decisibe defeat Sabbam's Army." Is dis a genehal pehcepshun, dat the, uh, the war was obeh unexpecked kickly, duh...uh...? "De Amehicans are not Martians." Dey mite dgust as webuhll be, uh uh uh, in fack t' almost half the, uh, the world’s populashun dey are, GEEEHEEHEEE.De Amehican expehiess is c'plete alien t' many 'n Amehica’s webuhapons are so far beyond dose of most countries t' be Sciess Ficshun. Dis frackure in humanity is growigg 'n I dink dat peoble are findigg it hardeh t' empadise across the, uhhh, dibide. -------------------- Regards, duuhhhh, Tielhard



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Edited by damnsuicidalroos (Sat May 10 2003 10:23 PM)
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
#171330 - Sat May 10 2003 06:58 PM Re: In defence of France
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
Je suis Jacques Chirac. Total Fina Elf, qu'est que c'est?? Je ne sais pas!!!

Top
#171331 - Sat May 10 2003 08:17 PM Re: In defence of France
flem-ish Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu Oct 11 2001
Posts: 319
Loc: Belgium
Before the War:
Jacques Chirac le Doux, about Bush, Aznar and Blair: "La Guerre des Trois n'aura pas lieu".
After the War:
Blair to Aznar: "THEIR oil for OUR Kingdoms".
Bush to Saddam:" If you GO, go TEXACO."
Bush to himself: "There is No Business like Oil Business."
Sharon, sitting by the banks of Jordan, to himself, shaking his head: "Those goyim they still don't understand it.Here in Israël it is about who has the WATER."

Top
#171332 - Sun May 11 2003 02:18 AM Re: In defence of France
snm Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Jan 30 2003
Posts: 901
Loc: Israel
Damn right it is!
_________________________
"Talk is cheap, arms are not"- Victor Davis Hanson

Top
#171333 - Sun May 11 2003 02:22 AM Re: In defence of France
Tielhard Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Oct 24 2002
Posts: 778
Loc: Blackpool UK
Not exactly short is it?

Do you not feel damnsuicidalroo that by suggesting that my post makes more sense to you in ‘moron’ and then offering it up to the general readership you are being rather rude to them and disrespectful of your own intellect? Nice of you to suggest my English style looks ‘Great’ though. Thank you.

Two thoughts:

1) Facts in war and commerce - ha ha ha ha ha.

2) "Total-Fina-Elf" is no different in its behaviours than any other ‘Oil Major’. The business is inherently corrupt. When the revenue from a single wellhead PER HOUR can far exceed $US 250,000 buckshee, standover and muscle are endemic.
_________________________
Regards, Tielhard

Top
#171334 - Sun May 11 2003 04:01 AM Re: In defence of France
damnsuicidalroos Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
I`ll have to sit this thread out for a time.The wretched dialectized version of one of Tielhards previous posts keeps cracking me up,and I`m not sure that I won`t be tempted to dialecterize more peoples posts into the Elmer Fudd version of them. Thanks to whomever first posted the link to that site I still find it amusing.Regarding the thanks given to me by Tielhard for my comment about his style looking "great",your welcome.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  bloomsby