France Joins the War on Terrorism
March 27th, 2008 at 02:04am Mark Noonan
Excellent news:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said France will send more troops to bolster Nato’s mission in Afghanistan, subject to certain conditions.
Mr Sarkozy, who is on a state visit to Britain, said he would make the offer at next week’s Nato summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.
Britain and the US have frequently called on other Nato members to send more soldiers to fight the Taleban.
The Nato-led force, Isaf, currently has over 43,000 personnel in Afghanistan.
In a speech to the British parliament in London, Mr Sarkozy said the Taleban could not be allowed to regain power.
“In Afghanistan something essential is being played out,” he said.
“France has proposed a strategy to its allies in the Atlantic alliance to enable the Afghan people and their legitimate government to build peace.
“If these proposals are accepted, during the summit in Bucharest, France will propose reinforcing its military presence.”
France already has troops in Afghanistan but like all other NATO forces - other than US, UK and Australia - they work on such restrictive rules of engagement as to be useless in a military sense except as static, garrison troops. President Sarkozy’s proposal indicates that the French military will engergetically engage in battle - and this, in turn, might get the Germans and others to step up to the plate. In the end, we are all in tihs together, and it will be over a lot faster if all concerned put some will into the fight.
The problem with Europe seems to be a lack of will to live, and a resultant unwillingness to fight. But it wasn’t always so - less than 100 years ago, France sternly sacrificed its manhood on the anvil-altar of Verdun, fighting for the core principle that governments must derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The great-grandsons of those brave men now hold the destiny of France - and, perhaps, Europe - in their hands. President Sarkozy has made a brave offer, we’ll now see if there is any will to live in France, and Europe.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
49 Comments
1. Freedom1 | March 27th, 2008 at 3:42 am
This is indeed great news! I really have a lot of respect for the brave French President Nicolas Sarkozy - aka “Sarko the American”.
France doesn’t even control all of France. There are the 751 No-Go Zones (ZUS) of France where 5 million Muslims live under Shari’a law:
A significant number of these Muslims have been fighting a “French Civil War” (see above “similar posts”) burning cars, torching buses, firing on police night after night in an intifada against the French people and French government. This Islamic intifada against the French government has been going on for something like the last 3 years.
An Arab journalist infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell in France. I wonder how many more Al Qaeda/Islamic terrorist cells there are in France?
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has a monumental job ahead of him to get control of his own country. Staying on offense in Afghanistan is a good first step. That shows bravery and strength. Islamists respect strength. Vive Sarkozy!
2. french student | March 27th, 2008 at 7:45 am
freedom1 : LOL!
3. js | March 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Surely, nobody could represent that the islamists in France wanted Sarkozy to be elected. Thats speaks of a population thats getting fed up with the socialism that pulls them toward sharia.
4. DM | March 27th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Freedom1, I want to thank you. You, more than most have been persistent and highly informative of the many dangers we face with regard to radical Islam. This article by the Arab journalist Mohamed Sifaoui conveys that all the more.
Sifaoui: Once Iraq is at war, many of our brothers will go there to fight jihad. George Bush will have answered our prayers by suppressing our enemy Saddam Hussein and unifying the Muslims in jihad. Then as Westerners do not know how to fight attrition wars, we know that they will inevitably get stuck. We will wait until they leave in order to establish an Islamist state in Iraq. This war will be a pretext to launch terrorist attacks in Europe as well.
Sifaoui: Too many Western analysts look at any adversary through a Western lens. Western analysts believe that Al-Qaeda is as rational as the Basque separatist group ETA [Euskadi Ta Askatasuna] or the Irish Republican Army. My personal history, culture, and investigative journalism work allow me to understand what Westerners cannot see: Iran will attack Israel as soon as it can.
MEQ: Doesn’t Iran take into account the eventuality of its own destruction?
Sifaoui: No, it does not. Martyrdom is exalted in Iran. Iranians view annihilation positively.
5. Joe | March 27th, 2008 at 9:49 am
DM:
“Freedom1, I want to thank you. You, more than most have been persistent and highly informative of the many dangers we face with regard to radical Islam.”
It doesn’t bother you at all that all of his “informative” links have come from other Islam-hating blogs?
6. moe | March 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
http://welovebush.blogspot.com/
7. dual_citzen | March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Mark….I just wanted to add to your comment, ‘France already has troops in Afghanistan but like all other NATO forces - other than US, UK and Australia - they work on such restrictive rules of engagement….’ That Canada is also making a substantial commitment (relative to Canada’s military force) and that the Canadian rules of engangment have see them make serious contributions to offensively engaging the Taliban in Sourthern Afghanistan around Kandahar. To date we’ve seen 81 of our brave soldiers killed in this conflict.
(Ed. Note: dual_citizen is corrected and I apologise - Canada has provided excellent military assistence in Afghanistan since early on).
8. Michael | March 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am
The Brussels Journal reports on Sarkozy and his campaign promise to get control back of the ZUS areas:
They also provide this link to a French government list of the 751 ZUS no-go areas with map references.
9. MorrisMajor | March 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
it’s estimated that most of Afghanistan is beyond the control of the central government and NATO troops and that the Taliban is a shadow government there. Wouldn’t it have been nice to wrap up the job there first instead of jumping into Iraq, a war based on shoddy reasoning, lies and cheap factoids>
10. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
It’s the Curly, Joe, and Mo show—–yukyukyukyuk. I’m sure Curly is on his way with another factless diatribe agains the United States and George W Bush and in general all who do not wave the red flag of socialism, but in the meantime Joe and Morris are doing a fine job of spreading the animal waste.
Another rabid Lib, Foxy, on another thread, accuses us of being anti-European, when in fact we merely comment on the failures of European socialism and the tendency of the radical Left to refuse to impose laws.
This thread and its references to the ZUS are proof of the failures of Leftism in Europe, not attacks on Europe itself. On the contrary, we have watched the decline of once-proud European nations and cultures with dismay, and seen them as harbingers of what we could expect here if we failed to learn from their mistakes.
We, too, have subcultures developing in our country, entire enclaves where English is not spoken, where those who live there hate America and are creating mini-countries of their own, of alien movements who openly talk about “taking back” entire states.
Poor silly Joe seems to think—and that is a very accurate phrase, “SEEMS to think”—that recognizing a threat is the same as showing hatred. But then this is the same mindset that says if we acknowledge a crime it is WE who are creating a criminal. It’s a strange, twisted, bizarre world view, and France is a great example of what can happen when those who share it gain power.
I just hope we can learn from their failures.
11. Joe | March 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Almiranta,
Try making a point next time. That was a lot of words with nothing but poking some fun at us “silly mindless libs”.
I’m not even sure why you are picking on something I didn’t say.
So… wake up and pay attention. Sound familiar?
12. FoolYouTwice | March 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ranty, it sounds like you have changed your mind and you now agree that recognizing the threat and failures of the Bush Administration is not hatred. Glad to see you coming around and using a little logic that you learned in those liberal schools.
13. MorrisMajor | March 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Since the US started the war, ultimately the US is calling the shots in Afghanistan and the US goaded NATO to joining in, THEN ultimately it is our responsibility for what happens there. Sounds old fashioned, but maybe we should have set things right there ASAP, but we had to jump into Iraq to make the people here feel safe and powerful. But of course to take responsibility would imply that Bush is screwing up and that would be Bush Derangement Syndrome, you know, where Bush is responsible for nothing wrong cause someone you don’t like once blamed him for something he really wasn’t responsible for.
14. Diana Powe | March 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Almiranta, international concern troll:
Yes, she has viewed those “once-proud” country and, sadly, she must find them wanting. It must be a blow to all those people living on the other side of the Atlantic to know that they’ve lost Almiranta and Mark’s confidence. How can they go on?
15. js | March 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
cmon morris, if you are going to detail facts, at least make sure they have a basis is truth
the US did not start the war in Afghanistan, last I checked, international law states that Afghanistan started the war by giving refuge and aid to AQ
when they refused to surrender them, they became part and parcel to the 9-11 attack, which was the act of war on US soil
nobody in the world stated we did not have just cause for military action, but we did not start the war…..we also did not “goad” nato into helping us, they did so because they are our allies, and thats what allies do
there is more you are hitting on that miss the target, but simply put, its missing the core element
the truth
16. SteaM | March 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I am wondering that in terms of how the board has been since the new rules that Mark and Matt have so nicely asked of to follow if in fact Almiranta has taken the lead as the worst offender so far.
It’s my observation that she has been trying very hard to change the subject on these threads. Thusly encouraging us all to go off topic.
I’m just sayin…
17. Robert | March 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
So, Mark, all of a sudden you now support France, huh?
Interesting, since most Conservatives hated France so much just a few short years ago they resorted to the EXTREMELY CHILDISH phrases of “Freedom Fries” and “I hate the French Vanilla.”
How quickly we forget that the French were in part the inspiration for our Constitution.
But as soon as France does something Conservatives like, they pretend like their babified response to France in recent years did not exist.
hmmm, where are the adults here…..
18. SteaM | March 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Robert I would hope it was on the uninformed and radical “far right” that felt that way. You know, the type of people who listen to or watch Bill Orielly and hang onto every word he says. He suggest we boycott France and the next think you know people are actually doing so.
19. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Joe, you said: “I’m not even sure why you are picking on something I didn’t say…” when I responded to your comment using the term “…other Islam-hating blogs” by pointing out that recognizing a threat—radical Islam—is not the same as HATING people.
Yes, it was relevant, yes, it was accurate—and yes, you are still not paying attention.
FYT, the overt hatred shown toward Bush is not illustrated by calm, rational, discussions of Bush policies but by lying about him, lying about what he has done, lying about his policies, inventing bizarre stories about him, calling him a drug addict, carrying on with nonsense such as “Bush’s grandfather did business with Hitler”, using vile ephtitets instead of his name….etc etc
SteaMy’s a hoot, as I am always saying “…. back to the thread…” and commenting on the actual thread topic. But I do engage, regularly, in what is evidently considered to be very upsetting name-calling—-I call Liberals Liberals.
ouch.
20. js | March 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
not so joe and curely
almiranta is pretty right on the button
the decline of euro society is caused because of the confusion of the EU trying to unite, only to recognize the semblance of socialism in its midst
many euro nations have misgivings about that issue, and the spectacle of the loss of the culturaly pride that inevitably would be wipped with it
sufficient to say that the falling away from tradition was some of the first indications that liberalism was stepping up to the plate a few decades back, yet it went obscurred until the last decade due to the untoward enthusiasm the liberal left instigated through change, which really didnt help much at all
needless to say, the individual statistics of euro nations indicate they are still not an industrial powerhouse compared via EU statistics, meaning that if they are to compete, they will lose thier national identities in order to be bound under one law, and one government, which will probably not occur, so the sense of decline in individual nations is hidden behind the whole as a union, and goes unnoticed by the simple minded liberals
so when we look at the decline of euro nations, based on moral senses, then the influx of islamic immigrants has truely done much more harm that good, in that the strife incited, in thier drive toward sharia law, as in france and nederland, then we note the threat and the disease that is set upon them, which could, truthfully, engulf much of the world in a fire storm within the next 20-30 years
so almiranta’s points seem to excede the boundries of your imaginations, liberals, as you are all ill suited to challenge her on simple facts because those facts dont change
21. FoolYouTwice | March 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hatred is rarely shown through calm, rational discussions. You should know that well enough. You seem to be jumping the gun here, immediately discussing only “overt hatred”. There are plenty of people out there who believe the Bush Adminstration has had many failures and discuss this in a calm and rational way. Blogs are not necessarily the place to find that kind of discussion, but once again, you should understand that.
I simply find it amazing that you can’t see the double standard you apply. Any negative discussion about the Bush administration is viewed as hatred and anti-american by yourself, but you refuse to apply those labels to yourself when you discuss any negatives about anyone else.
I am curious as to why all the conservatives here believe Europe is dying and failing. You all say that Europe was once glorious, but has fallen from that. When was Europe great in your opinion? When did they begin to go wrong? Do any of you actually know anything about how Europeans feel about their lives? Do you think they would agree with you that it is failing and dying? What if they believe America is failing, does that mean we actually are? I’m just curious as to how all of you believe yourself to be experts on European society. I know that Rush and other right wingers mention how horrible Europe is, but where else do you get your information from?
22. SteaM | March 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The Euro versus the Dollar.
23. southerner | March 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Mark, once I got to your sentence glorifying the Battle of Verdun as some sort of noble endeavor for the French I stopped reading. The fact that you would praise this horrific slaughter, part of a war that served no useful purpose (unlike WWII) says a lot about your world view.
This combined with your recent post regarding McCain’s desire to set up some sort of nascent League of Nations type organization really does nothing but prove that certain people are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
24. kimberly4victory | March 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“But as soon as France does something Conservatives like, they pretend like their babified response to France in recent years did not exist.”
Fighting the GWOT is something only conservatives like? Silly me. I thought we ALL wanted to protect ourselves from those who want us dead.
And, I think it’s great France is going to send more troops. Don’t you?
Yes, I had a problem with France before and it wasn’t because their president wasn’t a conservative. It was because France was exposed for enabling and abetting Iraqi belligerence. Shame on them.
Also, I’m not sure I would go as far as saying Europe is failing and dying but I do believe Europe is in trouble. Allowing Muslims to teach and subject others to Sharia Law is not a good thing. Allowing Muslims a No-Go area (I mean, come on!) … what were they thinking?
Signs from protests in the UK: Behead all those who insult Islam … Europe, your 9/11 is coming … Death to all unbelievers, etc.
Those are giant red flags, IMHO.
25. js | March 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
What if they believe that america is falling? It doesnt change the status of the EU, which is still being held up by euro nations, not the USA. There is alot of resent ment in Euro about the EU, dont you read?
Or is it offensive to you to hear the truth?
26. Some Assembly Required | March 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
25. js | March 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
haha, I think you may have misunderstood if your post was directed at Steam.
I think he was making the point about the Euro (European currency) vs the Dollar (American Currency). The Euro is almost double the green bank. So with that regard, the US is certainly failing not Europe.
27. SteaM | March 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Especially if OPEC decides to trade oil using the Euro rather then the Dollar. But that is alas slightly off topic.
28. Freedom1 | March 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Thanks, DM! :)
Almiranta, you rock.
29. Canadian Observer | March 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
10. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I detect some pretty strong jealousy directed at Europe coming from your corner, Almiranta.
Today, the U.S. finds itself at a very low point in its history; led by an incompetent leader, unloved even detested by some, surely not a great place to be for someone such as you, Almiranta, who has given your heart and soul to the neocon cause.
Perhaps an European visit would be beneficial in order to clear up some of those misconceptions you have; but, then again as SteaM points out, it will be expensive. Bring lots and lots of U.S.$.
30. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
CO, your detector’s on the blink.
For one thing, I am just not a whiner—-if I hated this country, I would move to one which more closely fit my ideal. So if I were “jealous” of any other country—including Canada—I’d be out of here.
It is patently silly to try to ascribe motives such as jealousy to a simple comment about the decline of European culture. Therefore, it is firmly in the realm of the radical left.
Example: For decades if not centuries France has held itself up as a model of civilization. It even got upset at the use of Americanizations such as “le drugstore”.
But its shift to a socialist political structure has had the effect of turning the French economy upside-down. The shift away from the family unit as the basis for the nation has resulted in a negative birth rate—the French are not making enough babies to replace those who age and die. (Not just the French—even Italy is experiencing this.)
But while the Left was emphasizing the unimportance of the family, and denigrating reproduction as the primary purpose of sexual congress, they were promoting extremely socialist issues, which have resulted in an economy which can most closely be compared to a pyramid scheme—-the only way it can work is to keep bringing in people to shore up the bottom tiers, so those at the top can continue getting the payments they were promised.
With fewer and fewer French children being born, the French have had to depend on immigrants to shore up those bottom tiers, to provide the tax revenues to pay off those at the top and meet the promises made to them for lavish government entitlement programs.
That might have worked, but the French, eager to be the most “progressive” of countries, declined to “impose” their culture on those who moved in. So now France has, according to the article, something like 5 million people who have not assimilated. They do not speak French, they do not accept or live by French law, and many of them are unemployable as they refuse to meet the most basic standards of employment.
One example I read was about a riot stemming from the fact that an Algerian was not hired as a taxi driver because he did not speak French, did not know Paris, and refused to carry women or dogs in his taxi.
Now France has huge areas where the French police or military cannot even enter, has something like 5 million people who not only do not speak the language but who actively and overtly want to replace the entire French system with one of their own.
The radical Left here in America might not find the situation in France to be less desirable than it was, say, forty years ago. But I do.
This hardly means I “hate” France. What it means is, I can learn from the mistakes of others, and I find the political situation in France which led to this sorry state of affairs to be the exact opposite of what I want to have here.
I have friends in Germany and England, and I hear the same types of stories from those countries.
I consider the erosion of a national identity to be a negative thing. If you are going to argue that the national identities of nations such as France and England have not been eroded by the various problems resulting from their increasingly liberal national governments, please make that argument.
In other words, please stop trying to make this about me, and actually address the thread.
If you can…………..
31. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
CO, what’s your international travel experience? Aside from intruding on an American blog, do you get out much?
I’ll bet I have spent more time in England alone than you have in any country other than your own, and on top of that I have spent time in the erst of the UK, France, and South and Central America.
And, of course, Canada. How much time have you spent in the US, Observer? Because it sounds like you just lurk at rabid anti-American web sites and wallow in the filth they generate, but have no actual experience in the country.
In other words, I have sat down in pubs and bistros and funky cervesarias and actually talked to people, and I have always been curious to find out what they think of this country, and of Americans.
I’ve run into some who have heard only the ignorant rantings of anti-Americans, but interestingly enough, even they are willing to question what they have heard. The prefix “Is it true that….” is the most common phrase I have heard in any of my travels.
So please refrain from lecturing me on anything, much less on how I need to visit other countries. You pretend to know so much about this one, yet you strut your ignorance so proudly, it is a wonder you have the chutzpah to actually declaim to ANYONE else that she needs to learn more about other countries.
32. Canadian Observer | March 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
31. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
CO, what’s your international travel experience? Aside from intruding on an American blog, do you get out much?
————————-
Let’s start with the U.S., ok?
The entire eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida - California - Arizona and Michigan.
In Europe - France, Switzerland, Italy and Croatia.
The Far East - Thailand, VietNam & Taiwan.
Hopefully my travelling days are not over and I will get to experience a lot more of our planet.
33. southerner | March 27th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Almiranta said:
So Almiranta, you’d do exactly what the immigrants you so clearly despise (according to your previous posts) do. You’d leave your native land and head off, presumably as an illegal immigrant to another one to find a better life. I say you’ll be an illegal since when you do this I think you’ll find you have a hard time getting any kind of long term visa since the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and just about every other first world nation does not offer them to Americans. So you would be an illegal.
Oh, wait a minute! Mexico might let you settle there, just as long as you keep a reasonable amount of pesos in the bank.
Oh the irony.
34. southerner | March 27th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
And by the way Almiranta, your international travel experience doesn’t impress me that much, a couple of European countries, only one of which you seem to have actually lived/worked in (and that being an English speaking nation that is culturally 80% similar to the US) and a general mention of having visited south/central America for unknown periods of time (hey, those weekends at the Best Western in Cancun ARE very affordable). That might make you wildly cosmopolitan in the kind of paranoid America-first circles you may move in but really isn’t that impressive to anyone who actually has a genuine interest in the rest of the world.
I’ve lived (and worked) in Australia for 2 years, spent 6 months living/working in London (plus many other trips there and other parts of the UK). Have lived/worked/studied for multiple years in Ireland, spent two years living/working in Thailand and Cambodia, lived/worked in Paris for 6 months in the mid 90s, spent a summer working in Germany (Munich) when I was younger. Have visited about a dozen European countries, seveal central American ones, Japan, Morocco and a few other places briefly. I’ve also lived and worked on both coasts of America and enjoyed several long road-trips through the heartlands. I’m luckier than most people in that my job for most of my life (corporate training and consultancy) allowed me to travel as much as I wanted, however one thing I have found is that there is a direct co-relation between the amount one travels and one’s open-mindedness to other cultures and ways of living. Your posts are redolent of someone with a highly cynical view of the peoples of the world, you really seem to think that the only way to approach such people is via the authoritarian right-wing policies you epouse every day in here, hardly the mark of a cosmopolitan.
35. FmrMarine | March 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
CO
>>>Today, the U.S. finds itself at a very low point in its history; led by an incompetent leader, unloved even detested by some, surely not a great place to be for<<<
A kanuk from FRENCH montreal kanada that gave the world treadeau what do you know what the world thinks?
Stay up north FROG we wand none of your socialistic arguments here.
36. FmrMarine | March 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
>>>you really seem to think that the only way to approach such people is via the authoritarian right-wing policies you epouse every day in here, hardly the mark of a cosmopolitan.<<<
In the word of Dick Cheney…WHO CARES!
sure everybody hates a winner, until they need us, then the ASS kissing begins.
Cosmopolitan? my A$$
37. southerner | March 27th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
So Mark, you’ve mentioned in your recent post about banning/deleting insulting or aggravating posters that you won’t put up with anything other than spirited debate on the blog.
What would you say abou fmr marine’s above two comments? Essentially all he did is call someone he disagrees with a frog and then make a moronic reply to one of my earlier posts. If you don’t want to see boring back-and-forth insult fests on here why don’t you censor people like him the same way you censor those from the left.
38. FmrMarine | March 27th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
AHH
the NEW tactic
lets all complain to mark and get those who confront us kicked off……..nice try!
39. FmrMarine | March 27th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
south
>>>That might make you wildly cosmopolitan in the kind of paranoid America-first circles you may move<<>>you really seem to think that the only way to approach such people is via the authoritarian right-wing policies you epouse every day in here,<<<>>>So Almiranta, you’d do exactly what the immigrants you so clearly despise<<<>>>Oh, wait a minute! Mexico might let you settle there,<<<
AHH I can feel your love….NO attacks there!
lets whine to Mark when someone offends thouge. Maybe we can get all those awful conservatives off this ….conservative post if we whine enough.
SORRY, but i get sick of some foreigner ( co ) telling me how bad MY PRESIDENT is.
40. Some Assembly Required | March 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
FmrMarine, you are a man of class
41. js | March 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
i dont find much of anything really offensive there southerner, in spite of your use of the blog to brag up your self image
do you have anything of real substance for us, outside of the part that makes you a legend in your own mind?
you are no representative of a or the world view, and as they say, water only rises to its own level, so get of the pot or you know what, its bad enough that we have to listen to all that staynk about what you may or may not have done
42. js | March 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
oh and another thing i noticed southerner, you tallk out of your derier, did you know that?
how can I tell? It was pretty easy.
Just hook up to the canadian work permit visa site, every thing you said about a visa for long term stays for Americans is a lie
Id gamble that everything you said in that post carried just as much significance.
Now go home before you mother finds out how big of a fool you been being here son, you shamee the good people of Canada enough.
43. js | March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Im gettin to think that most of these bleeding liberals went to the same school, one and all. They all have the same bad habits. Really, its true. They are naive, vindictive, and they lie, gossip, spread rumors, and when they get caught, they change the subject.
Anyone else notice that trend?
44. Freedom1 | March 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
FmrMarine and JS, you rock, too! :)
45. southerner | March 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
js, what is your problem? Do you even read your own posts back - they barely make any form of sense. You think Americans can get visas to work in Europe, Japan, etc? I can assure you as a matter of simple fact that they cannot. It’s up to you to prove otherwise, you will not be able to though so I reckon we won’t be hearing from you again on this issue.
Also, it was Almiranta who started boasting about all the places she’d been and how that made her such a well-travelled global citizen, I just pointed out that her travel experience wasn’t that impressive. And none of the things which fmr marine quoted were insults in terms of being name calling, they were simply outlining Almiranta’s position on things and the inherent unpleasantness of such positions. That’s her problem, not mine.
JS, I understand you’re just going to ignore the points I raise or distort them cause that’s your approach to this blog and frankly in open debate it seems to be the best you can do. I think it’s fair to say you don’t have much credibility on here since you’ve been caught out for being wildly incorrect about so many things (Europe having liberated Iran at some point in the past, the Bible not containing the Book of Revelations, etc., etc.) but all the same you seem to have some bizarre compulsion to come back and shoot your mouth off.
Finally, learn how to spell derriere.
46. Mark Noonan | March 28th, 2008 at 3:24 am
southerner,
About 163,000 Frenchmen were killed at Verdun; I made no judgement as to the wisdom of France’s decision to fight it out there, or the manner in which they fought…but that they fought bravely cannot be denied…except, it seems, by lefties who can’t go a moment without spewing out something hateful.
If you want a fuller understanding of my views on Verdun: France should have stepped back from the meat grinder and let the Germans occupy the blasted moonscape in front of Verdun…they could have exacted a much higher blood price from the Germans, at lower cost to themselves. But the leaders of France, backed by their ardent troops and citizens, decided to fight it out for every inch of ground…and bravely they did so. Perhaps in folly, but bravely none the less.
47. southerner | March 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“The leaders of France, backed by their ardent tooops and citizens decided to fight it out for every inch of ground”
That quote just goes to show how little you know about World War 1 Mark, the leaders of France at that point were very similar to the Bush admnistration today, stubborn dead-enders who could not admit that they had made a huge mistake. The French populace by the time of Verdum were deeply hostile to the war and the trooops were deserting en masse, the only reason more of them didn’t go was because the penalty for desertion was of course death by firing squad (check out Stanley Kubrick’s great early film Paths of Glory to see the atmosphere of this period brilliantly captured).
Once again you paint a rosy picture of war and its support among the populace which bears no resemblence to reality. The fact is that the troops at Verdun were slaughtered for no good reason, they would not have been there if their leaders weren’t such callous fools. Nivelle’s boast that “they shall not pass” was almost as dumb as Bush’s “Bring it on” in terms of the callous manner these jerks put the lives of tens of thousands of honest troops in danger.
Verdun was one of the great human tragedys of history and the idea that you would cite it as something noble or admirable really, really does say a lot about you.
48. Mark Noonan | March 28th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
southerner,
Errmmm…well, Verdun was fought in 1916, while the disorders in the French army didn’t happen until a year later…and there were never mass desertions from the French army, even at the height of the army disorders in 1917.
You really have to get out of the anti-Bush mindset…and, also, perhaps not challenge someone who has an ecyclopedic knowledge of the two World Wars.
49. southerner | March 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Mark, troop desertion was a serious matter in WW1 from the beginning of trench warfare. As I mentioned above the only reason there wasn’t more of it was because deserters or anyone who did not go over the top in to no man’s land was shot by summary execution.
And why should I get out of my “anti-Bush” mindset? This has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with your ongoing glorification of war, a position that puts you in direct confrontation with the leader of your own Church.
And by the way, it’s hill-ay-rious that you claim to have an “encylopedic” knowledge of world wars. I have never encountered anyone thus far in my life who was egocentric enough to claim for himself an encyclopedic knowledge of anything (and teaching at NYU I know some pretty knowledgeable people), do you realize how ridiculous that makes you sound? I bet you were the kind of little boy who played with soldiers a lot though, the kind that reads those creepy “weapons of war” military magazines. You certainly do seem to have a hard-on for violent mass conflict. I’m amazed you aren’t over there in the Green Zone telling your buddies in the squadron that the curfew and the mortars that are reigning down are a sure sign that the surge has worked. But hey, maybe keyboard warfare suits you better.