I wonder what is a heavier charge, skipping out on the anthem, or pissing in your seat?

Good old land of the free huh.

Hot damn, now that is population control, that you can make money off.

At 8/28/08 10:50 PM, NickDaPwner wrote:

At 8/28/08 06:32 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Instead, have public schools teach children about being accepting of all relgions and teaching them about all the major faiths and beliefs, including atheism, so they have a more open view. We shouldn't stop families for practicing there freedom of relgion however.

a post in this thread that isn't complete ignorance and dumbfuckery??

i must be seeing things

Sorry but I don't want my child learning about god and religion in the school that my tax dollars pay for. He will learn enough about it at home to make an informed decision when he is ready to do so. But brainwashing them from such an early age is criminal

At 8/26/08 02:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:20 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/25/08 08:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: There's a combination of ways the US could have known that. There could have been.... There could have been..... For all you know, there could have been.... Or, since it was a joint operation, the US may have....

In other words, you have no idea.

holy ball sacks, you're an idiot.

Ok then, how can video surveillance identify a charred body? Or how can an American watching aerial footage 500 hundred miles away identify a Taliban fighter if cellar says a natural born Afghani can't tell?

At 8/25/08 08:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:26 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Um... have you seen pictures of the Taliban?

Hmm, so if it's so hard to tell the Taliban from regular Afghanis how did the US know "30 Taliban insurgents were killed in the operation"? Especially at first sight.

There's a combination of ways the US could have known that. There could have been.... There could have been..... For all you know, there could have been.... Or, since it was a joint operation, the US may have....

In other words, you have no idea.

That might explain why the two local military commanders were fired.

They were fired because they criticized the US air strike.

Well I guess we will never know then. The US will say they are fighters to lessen the civilian casualty count, and the Afghanis will say they are Afghanis for better compensation.

I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

I'm going with both.

So without proof in my hand, it's hear-say, ok then.

Well, what we have here yet again is two contradictory accounts. There is no direct proof of either claim, and just to compromise, we can assume there is an incentive for both sides to lie. So without an independent, unbiased investigation we can't claim with confidence what happened either way.

The UN says 90 civilians were killed, 60 children, 15 women and 15 men.

My dirtbike (and my family, but let's not go there) is probably better than yours.

ROFL are you serious? You sound like a little child "my bike is better than yours" lol.

It's called a joke. That's what I was trying to accomplish.

LMAO no you weren't. That was not a joke and you know it. You were being your normal egotistical self claiming that anything you (an American) have is better than what I (a Canadian) may have, even if it's the same damn thing.

It's an '05 Honda CRF450r, by the way. I'm sure you're just some pussy trail rider, so it might be a little too awesome for your purposes. You'd probably piss yourself if you rode it.

We can continue this (dirtbike) conversation in a more appropriate place.

At 8/24/08 11:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:55 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 08:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Because the Afghan military is composed entirely of forensics experts. Right.

A natural born Afghani might be able to tell a Taliban fighter by his looks, his clothing, maybe some tattoos or markings.

Um... have you seen pictures of the Taliban?

Hmm, so if it's so hard to tell the Taliban from regular Afghanis how did the US know "30 Taliban insurgents were killed in the operation"? Especially at first sight.

I certainly doubt dental and DNA records are going to help much in Afghanistan.

I certainly doubt that the Afghan military has the tools, whatever they are, to identify the charred remains of bodies to determine whether or not they were Taliban. In this case they say there were children there, but what about the men? How can they show those males weren't Taliban?

Well I guess we will never know then. The US will say they are fighters to lessen the civilian casualty count, and the Afghanis will say they are Afghanis for better compensation.

You are correct, my bad, I was reading from a different incident in which the US "blamed the claims [of civilian casualties] on militant propaganda and said its missiles only struck insurgents." Even though their missile killed 27 civilians walking to a funeral.

Where is the proof that it was civilians other than hear-say?

So without proof in my hand, it's hear-say, ok then.

In this case the US claimed there were "only five civilians were among those killed", when in fact the number exceeds 70 civilians, according to the Afghanis.

It could have very well been true that the area that was deliberately bombed only had 5 civilian casualties initially, but that surrounding collateral damage and deaths that resulted from the attacks shortly afterward added up.

Is this how you justify these deaths in your head?

But even then, since the US is known to pay compensation to the victims of US bombings, it's very likely that local leaders in the area made it up or exaggerated what happened. In fact, your link says:

Guess we will have to wait and see.

You act like the Us just wants to kill civilians, but then you pretend the US covers it up.

I don't think the US wants to kill civis, but I doubt that they put a whole lot of care in preventing civilian casualties, for the slight possibility of killing an enemy fighter.

If that were true, there'd be way, way, way more civilian casualties given the ridiculous amounts of firepower the US could bring to bear in Afghanistan. Afghan villages would all be smoldering holes in the ground if US was unconcerned with reducing civilian casualties in the quest to kill a few enemy fighters.

Civilian casualties are up 40% this year over last year, could some of this be caused by a lack of care on US military to prevent civilian casualties during air strikes? Maybe, maybe not.

LMAO, I don't need the US bombing weddings and funerals for me to feel better about my existence.

I think you do. In fact, I think that you actually like it when you hear news of civilian casualties, because it gives you ammunition to bash the US, which is your priority.

Yeah that's it. I like to hear about innocent civilians dying, you got it man. You're a fucking clown.

My family and my dirt bike make me feel better about my existence.

My dirtbike (and my family, but let's not go there) is probably better than yours.

ROFL are you serious? You sound like a little child "my bike is better than yours" lol. If you're going to be so childish, at least leave a pic of your bike (or one that you will claim is yours, like that Beemer way back when). And I'm sure you're a better rider too.

At 8/24/08 08:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Because the Afghan military is composed entirely of forensics experts. Right.

A natural born Afghani might be able to tell a Taliban fighter by his looks, his clothing, maybe some tattoos or markings. I certainly doubt dental and DNA records are going to help much in Afghanistan.

And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties

Um no, actually the US did admit civilian casualties.

You are correct, my bad, I was reading from a different incident in which the US "blamed the claims [of civilian casualties] on militant propaganda and said its missiles only struck insurgents." Even though their missile killed 27 civilians walking to a funeral.
In this case the US claimed there were "only five civilians were among those killed", when in fact the number exceeds 70 civilians, according to the Afghanis.

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it.

You're pretending that the US is deliberately bombing wedding parties... why exactly?

I'm just saying that the US bombing a wedding party is not a surprise.

You act like the Us just wants to kill civilians, but then you pretend the US covers it up.

I don't think the US wants to kill civis, but I doubt that they put a whole lot of care in preventing civilian casualties, for the slight possibility of killing an enemy fighter.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Whatever helps you perpetuate your fiendish bias against the US to help feel better about your existence.

LMAO, I don't need the US bombing weddings and funerals for me to feel better about my existence. My family and my dirt bike make me feel better about my existence.

At 8/24/08 11:15 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Because as we all know, defending US actions in a war is the equivallent of shooting civilians.

Defending the killing of 1 or 2 civilians in a shoot out with a pile of Terrorists is one thing. But wiping out almost 80 civilians and no traces of even one enemy? That reeks of incompetence.

Thank You, when I rewrite Dante's Inferno, I'll be reminded to put defenders of military action on a lower level of hell then any other sin.

Damn, even as a defender of innocent civilians, I scored a Level 2

At 8/23/08 11:53 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/23/08 11:51 PM, bcdemon wrote: But if Canada joined OPEC that would mean that the US would invade Canada and remove our evil dictator for their own national security, or something like that.

You had to be an asshole and go there.

LOL, I'm not wrong though am I? The US would not stand for Canada joining OPEC.

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Taliban wages guerrilla war.
Taliban hides in civilian areas.
The US bombs them.
Civilians die by mistake.

Mistake? wow. 60 children and 19 women, by mistake huh? The US military says "30 Taliban insurgents were killed in the operation", but the Afghan military spokesman says "We couldn't and we haven't found any identification showing they are Taliban," So where were the Taliban hiding cellar? In your fucking head is where. The US has bombed many wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is no surprise. And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties (which makes its way to America media), and then the truth reports come out about everyone dead being a civilian (which doesn't make it's way to America media). It has happened before and it will definitely happen again.

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

At 8/23/08 10:06 AM, Saruman200 wrote: If the US or Canada, or Britian were the ones with the huge oil reserves they would do something similar.

Actually Canada does have the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves in the world. But if Canada joined OPEC that would mean that the US would invade Canada and remove our evil dictator for their own national security, or something like that.

At 8/22/08 03:54 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: Opec is the number of countries that have the leading oil and selling of it.

Although OPEC countries do hold 2/3 of the worlds oil reserves, they only produce 40% of the worlds oil.

Opec is charging the price per barrel way too high.

OPEC doesn't set the price per barrel, the buyers and sellers (stock markets) set it.

They will keep it just low enough so people dont go "We need new fules....NOW!"

Opec must go. We need to have new fules and then once we do, we hang the leaders of opec.

Have you ever looked at the gas prices OPEC countries pay? They pay considerably less than non-OPEC countries for a gallon of gasoline. I would love for Canada to join OPEC.

At 8/23/08 07:19 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 8/7/08 08:49 AM, bcdemon wrote: No, the accusation doesn't appear to be valid because the American who made it is misinformed. If he had known the Brits were not told of an impending charge on Basra it may have changed his opinion of what happened.

So you're believing the UK general, but not the American one because, apparently, of a prestanding bias?

Umm no. The brits stayed out of Basra because they were not included in the planned charge on Basra. The American commander claims the reason they (UK) stayed out of Basra during the charge was because of a deal with the Mahdi, which is untrue according to the UK.

At 8/22/08 01:05 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Again, I foresee this becoming a "why didn't the cop gather 50 witnesses to help justify his petty misdemeanor citation in order to undoubtably answer any appeals that the peace was indeed disturbed enough to warrant action."

Are you guys seriously going to start arguing for this type of protocol concerning minor offenses?

Dull.

Like Elfer said, if the peace wasn't disturbed, then there should be no charge. I believe (from the evidence so far) the only reason he cited her was because she gave him a snub apology and walked away from him. People in power don't like to be snubbed and then walked away from. And the only witnesses he will need are the ones whose peace was disturbed by her saying fuck.

At 8/21/08 10:00 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 8/21/08 09:04 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/20/08 07:48 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Ignore that statement now and concentrate that an uncooperative perp should be cuffed, it's SOP.

The only thing that even resembles uncooperative is when she walked away from him, but she obviously cooperated with him, how else would he have gotten her outside.

She had to leave sometime. I'm assuming she didn't want to come out when he told her to, because she knew what was happening. Instead of accepting her ticket she chose to make it tough on the guy. You guys would be swayed if he had actually had the citation book on his persons? That's what this issue is about right, how far can a person expect cooperation when issuing citations without "being on a power trip"?

Actually, according to Zacherl she was "led outside", presumably by Decker. Fridge said he pulled out the cuffs as soon as she walked away from him. Which would mean that he had intended on giving her a citation for the first "fuck". The following expletives were used after she had already known that she was getting written up. This issue is about getting cited for saying a swear word to your mom in public. Definitely would be different if she were screaming FUCK because the store had no batteries, but she wasn't, she said it in conversation to her mom. That is my issue.

I'd also like to know which of you view his actions as legally wrong or simply morally wrong, because each one has a different angle of attack.

I think it is both, legally wrong and morally wrong for Decker to write someone up for saying a swear word. Legally wrong because I don't believe she "disturbed the peace" by saying it in conversation to her mom. And morally wrong, because Decker uses the word himself. He who throws stones.....

But did she really "disturb the peace" or did she just disturb Decker (who, according to past complaints gets disturbed quite easily)?

She had her young child with her, I'd be disturbed witnessing that, as I'm sure Decker was.

So you agree that she just disturbed Decker, and not the peace by swearing? That doesn't warrant a citation.

This is something we don't know yet. Zacherl says that she cussed at "everyone", but he wasn't even there so how does he really know what happened.

He's probably taking the word of his employee, who's passed numerous tests and is given society's tacit approval to make judgement calls such as these. The court will decide if any procedure was improperly executed.. and I don't believe they'll erase the disturbing the peace citation in order to give this bitch recompense for being stupid.

I believe the local court will uphold Decker citation (small town bias), but if she were to take it to a higher court, I have no doubt it would be overturned. And probably joked about over lunch.

He went on a power trip last year and got arrested for it. One of these days his power trippin will get him into serious trouble, either professionally or physically, and he will deserve it.

Maybe his prior arrest deserves the same scrutiny you're giving his action.

Lazy, he stuck his head and arms in the car window of this guy named Taylor, Decker just happened to be fucking Taylors ex-wife. He called him chickenshit and motherfucker and told him to get out of the car so Decker could kick his ass. All this while Taylors 9 year old daughter sit in the passenger seat crying and shaking. Decker paid his fine, without an argument.
I'm just curious how he keeps his civil servant job after this incident, incredible.

Yeah this guy really should be shot, along with the woman. They both don't deserve to breathe, no doubt.

Shot? lol a little extreme I think.

Fact is, Decker is still an agent of the law. Janet Reno ordering the murder of a bunch of women and children didn't tarnish her ability to uphold the law, and neither does having a demerit on your resume.

He is an agent of law, but I don't believe she broke the law.

At 8/20/08 02:17 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/19/08 11:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Now, screaming "fuck" through a bull horn is disturbing the peace, saying it within the earshot of some guy isn't.

Saying it within earshot of an enforcement agent is. Trust me, the judge told me that shit directly.

Actually lazy, supreme courts have stated that directing expletives at enforcement officials is NOT ILLEGAL unless it is said in a way to provoke the official.

That's the key part. What parts of the article indicate she was provoking the official? The sign language? The continued use of the problematic phrases? I'm saying he acted within the law, within his rights.

I don't find anything she did really provoked Decker to cuff her. She swore, he commented to her on it, she apologized and walked away, then he pulled out his cuffs. The rest of the swearing and sign language came after she realized she was getting written up for swearing in public.

If directing swear words at officials isn't illegal, then how can you say that saying withing earshot is?

Swearing at an official is nearly always construed as provocation, making it illegal.

Swearing at, as in directing the word at an officer, and swearing within earshot is totally different.

What judge told you that it was illegal to swear within earshot of an enforcement agent?

Judge Dehn, "It isn't protected speech to rally support against enforcement agents, but it is a great way to get handcuffed and arrested."

The officers at the city where I work interpret cussing of a particular sort to be evidence of uncooperativeness. "Fuck this car, man" will not get you into trouble with a cop unless there're others around who may or may not find such speech disturbing their peace. "Fuck this charge and fuck you, too" may get you tackled and cuffed. Who knows what someone so blatantly opposing the uniformed law could do?

I guess we will have to wait and see if any other Walmart patrons were directly affected by her comments to her mother.

At 8/20/08 07:48 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Ignore that statement now and concentrate that an uncooperative perp should be cuffed, it's SOP.

How was she uncooperative? He asked her to watch her mouth, she apologized, he asked her for her name, she gave it. It seems the only people who think she was belligerent and uncooperative are you, Proteas and Zacherl. The only thing that even resembles uncooperative is when she walked away from him, but she obviously cooperated with him, how else would he have gotten her outside.

This guy (Decker) over reacted, went on a power trip.

He was enforcing statutes, on duty, and the woman was so ignorant of the law and his position that she tried to rally support by acting as though the investigator was just another internet chump.

But did she really "disturb the peace" or did she just disturb Decker (who, according to past complaints gets disturbed quite easily)? This is something we don't know yet. Zacherl says that she cussed at "everyone", but he wasn't even there so how does he really know what happened.

He went on a power trip last year and got arrested for it. One of these days his power trippin will get him into serious trouble, either professionally or physically, and he will deserve it.

Maybe his prior arrest deserves the same scrutiny you're giving his action.

Lazy, he stuck his head and arms in the car window of this guy named Taylor, Decker just happened to be fucking Taylors ex-wife. He called him chickenshit and motherfucker and told him to get out of the car so Decker could kick his ass. All this while Taylors 9 year old daughter sit in the passenger seat crying and shaking. Decker paid his fine, without an argument.
I'm just curious how he keeps his civil servant job after this incident, incredible.

Maybe you should understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maybe you should recognize the difference in situations. She said fuck in conversation to her mom. Decker aimed his cuss words and threats directly at someone in front of his child.

At 8/20/08 02:17 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/19/08 11:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Now, screaming "fuck" through a bull horn is disturbing the peace, saying it within the earshot of some guy isn't.

Saying it within earshot of an enforcement agent is. Trust me, the judge told me that shit directly.

Actually lazy, supreme courts have stated that directing expletives at enforcement officials is NOT ILLEGAL unless it is said in a way to provoke the official. It has happened in California (Cohen v. California), it has happened in Idaho, it has happened in Pennsylvania . Also check out the "cussing canoeist". If directing swear words at officials isn't illegal, then how can you say that saying withing earshot is? What judge told you that it was illegal to swear within earshot of an enforcement agent?

At 8/20/08 01:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: And if he felt his life was threatened by sign language, then he leads a very paranoid life.

standard operating procedure
-noun
a set of fixed instructions or steps for carrying out usually routine operations. Abbreviation: SOP

Comprender engles, senor? Comprendre l'anglais, monsieur? Do you understand the words that coming across your screen? What part of "I handcuffed the woman who was acting like a psycho whilst I checked her arrest record to make sure there wasn't a warrant out for her arrest" do you not get?

What would you have done?

Being the more laid back person I am, as opposed to the high strung power monger Decker is, I may have had her sit in the car, or maybe on the curb. I definitely would not cuff her for being immature. And calling her "psycho" for spelling out her name and using sign language is a false description in the worst way. Spelling your name verbally or through sign language is not a belligerent or psychotic act, it is an immature act, and I doubt the SOP for acting immature is handcuffs. How about you gather up some info on the exact SOP for her exact actions, clear this up lickity split.

At 8/19/08 09:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: "Decker asked for her name, and Fridge said she began to spell it out verbally and in sign language, which angered him. As their confrontation continued, he handcuffed her."

SHe was being belligerent. This is after the in-store cussing incident.

LOL That's not belligerent. Spelling your name out and using sign language is not belligerent, it's immature, and last I checked, immaturity does not warrant hand cuffs. And if he felt his life was threatened by sign language, then he leads a very paranoid life.

This guy (Decker) over reacted, went on a power trip. He went on a power trip last year and got arrested for it. One of these days his power trippin will get him into serious trouble, either professionally or physically, and he will deserve it.

Proteas, you think someone who says "fuck" in public and then acts immature is insane? That's a little overboard don't ya think? Just like the fire marshal feeling his life was threatened by swear words and sign language.
How ironic, this fire marshal was charged with the exact same offense a year ago:

A statewide computer search of databases revealed no criminal record for Decker, but a case against him was brought Aug. 28, 2007, and deferred the following month.

In an apparent domestic dispute, Stephen Taylor complained to Dickinson police and a League City justice of the peace, accusing Decker of threatening him with profane language within earshot of Taylor's freightened 9-year-old daughter.

According to the affidavit, Decker and Taylor's ex-wife were dating at the time.

Taylor had no comment.

A message left for Decker at his office wasn't returned. Decker has no public telephone listing.

A judge on Aug. 29, 2007, issued an arrest warrant for Decker on a Class B misdemeanor terroristic threat charge.

Bond for Decker was set at $1,000.

In the affidavit, Decker is accused of placing his head and arms inside Taylor's truck, while his daughter, a passenger, had her head between her knees, crying and shaking.

Taylor's affidavit states: "(Decker) was calling me a 'chicken s-, mother f---. Get out and I will beat your ass."

Public records also reveal Taylor first told his story to Dickinson police, saying he feared no one would believe him, because Decker was a fire marshal and police officer. Dickinson police referred Taylor to the justice of the peace.

A Galveston County assistant district attorney reduced Decker's case to a Class C misdemeanor threat charge.

According to court documents, Decker paid $263, received 180 days' probation and was ordered to have no contact with Taylor.

The charge was deferred and then dismissed, a court clerk said, when Decker abided by the court's guidelines.

At 8/16/08 10:01 AM, poxpower wrote: What the fuck is that?

Sergey Brin, one of the founders of google is a jew.

I agree with Pox, this guy is power trippin. He cuffed her because he felt his life was threatened, because she swore!!! If you feel your life is threatened by a swear word, man oh man are you going to have a hard go at life. I bet he would have tasered her had he been equipped with such a device.

Good job Bushy, eliminate Russian from the Georgian picture. Now the CAP (Central Asia Pipeline) will be more secure to roll through Georgia. Just as it did through Afghanistan months ofter Karzai was installed as leader. But your biggest challenge still awaits GeeDub, the Iranian corridor. You snag that up and Centgas and UNOCOL will make you king.

I'm not saying the US started this whole fiasco, but I will agree they helped (the Georgians) out large.

I never really thought of US involvement in the situation. But the Central Asian Pipeline may have something to do with it. Check the "proposed pipeline" section through Georgia. Just a thought.

People saying Olympic medals = power aren't too far off. You need a strong financial backing for Olympians to train to be the best, the more powerful the country, the more free cash they tend to have to waste on stuff like Olympic training. A good population base is needed aswell, the bigger the talent pool, the better chance at finding "the one". That and have a good Olympic immigration policy so you can attract the best athletes from the world.

At 8/9/08 12:01 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: canada pays athletes up to $20,ooo for medalling. damn thats it?

That's $20,000 for gold, $15k for Silver and $10k for bronze. USA pays $25k for gold, and the same for 2nd and 3rd place as Canada.

At 8/6/08 12:34 AM, Chavic wrote: Apparently french people can't spell or use proper grammar, so you're losing already.

If you looked around this BBS you will find many Americans who learn English as a primary language that still cannot use it properly.

1st Claim: French food is superior to your american fatty foods.
Overly ornate and foul tasting food from france just sucks.

Then why is it that the best restaurants in the world (including USA) serve French cuisine and not American chow?

2nd Claim: Unlike France, you've never won the FIFA World Cup! Our players aren't drugged athletes like Lance Armstrong.
Let's take a wider view, such as the 2004 Olympics.

No no, go back to the 2000 olympics and the USA 4x400 relay team that just had its gold medal taken away due to Antonio Pettigrew taking performance enhancing drugs. Let's not even talk about Marion Jones.

3rd Claim: France is the oldest nation on earth. america is like 250 years old! RESPECT YOUR ELDERS DAMMIT!
Why doesn't your head start help you out there?

What does a countries longevity have to do with its GDP?

4th Claim: France invented perfume
Wrong again. Perfume has been used as far back as the Egyptian Empire and probably before.

You got that one right. But let's not forget France is the leader in perfume today.

5th Claim: america claims to be the home of liberty, yet who gave you the freaking Statue of Liberty?!
Yeah, a french artist gave us the Statue of Liberty. And America Liberated France from German occupation in WW1 and WW2.

Not only did the French help you with your independence, they gave you a statue so you could boast it.

6th Claim: Let's see how much the Almighty God, in who you "trust in" so much, likes you! You get tornadoes, tropical storms, hurricanes, Tom Cruise, volcanoes, and earthquakes, etc.
America is more than 14 times the size of France and so is exposed to more natural disasters.

And Canada is 18 times the size of France, and we have similar amounts of natural disasters as France. Size isn't everything you know, location location location.

7th Claim: Let's compare your medicare to our medicare! Hey wait a minute!! YOU PRETTY MUCH DON'T HAVE ANY!
france does have one of the best health care systems around,

Might as well just leave it at that then.

8th Claim: america sucks, you have to wait until 21 to be able to buy a freaking beer...
This claim doesn't really make sense. So its good that little kids can buy cigarettes and alcohol?

"little kids" can fight for the country, why shouldn't they have a beer when the day is done?

9th Claim: This.
Yet again you are wrong. The Myth of Thin French Women

France's obesity rate was 10% in 2006...far lower than the U.S., where the rate recently passed 25%

10th Claim: This was unreadable BS so I have replaced it. As you can see America is better. My claim is backed by fact and not a desperate rant. Sorry, but I win.

Actually you lost. Your opinions (not facts) is all you have.

At 8/7/08 08:35 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 8/7/08 08:25 AM, bcdemon wrote: Apparently it's the Americans who started the rumor about the Brits not entering the fight due to a deal with the Mahdi - "...American commanders claimed that, because of the deal with al-Mahdi Army Shia militia, British troops could not go into Basra"

So the accusation isn't valid because it's from the Americans?

No, the accusation doesn't appear to be valid because the American who made it is misinformed. If he had known the Brits were not told of an impending charge on Basra it may have changed his opinion of what happened.

Apparently it's the Americans who started the rumor about the Brits not entering the fight due to a deal with the Mahdi - "...American commanders claimed that, because of the deal with al-Mahdi Army Shia militia, British troops could not go into Basra"
I think Al Maliki (with Patreaus support) is trying to screw the Brits for whatever reason. Maybe he doesn't like Gordon Brown, who knows. Personally I think the UK should do a quick pullout from Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis and the US. Hell, if you're not wanted there, get the hell out.

That's American media, now read UK media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug /05/iraq.military

British defence officials today denied reports that a secret deal between Britain and the Shia militia the Mahdi army prevented UK forces from taking part in a major offensive in Basra earlier this year.

Officials in the Ministry of Defence today confirmed the existence of an "accommodation" between British forces and leaders of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, first reported in the Guardian last year.

However, referring to a report in the Times, they dismissed as "absolute nonsense" any link between the deal and the fact that British troops did not take part in the early stages of the Charge of the Knights offensive in March.

An official said: "The reason [why UK forces were not deployed initially on the ground] was, we were simply not asked. The reason we were not asked was because [the Iraqi prime minister] Nouri al-Maliki's own credibility was on the line.

"The only reason the Americans were involved was because they were with the Iraqi units."

Under the terms of last year's accommodation, UK troops released suspected members of the militia in return for militia leaders ending their attacks.

The Charge of the Knights was Maliki's initiative. It involved deploying large Iraqi army units, with their US mentors, from central Iraq to Basra. British-trained Iraqi troops based in Basra were involved but not as part of the spearhead.

Maliki was determined to weed out rebel units of the Mahdi army and criminal gangs. Local Iraqi forces and British troops had failed to do this, annoying the US and the Baghdad government, British officials now concede. The officials also admit that they were surprised about the sudden decision to launch the Charge of the Knights and embarrassed that they knew nothing about it.

Brigadier Julian Free, commander of British troops in Basra at the time, has already described how British commanders earlier drew up a three-stage plan with General Mohan, the Iraqi commander in Basra.

One Friday in March, he went to Baghdad to argue for the plan at a meeting with David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq. The next day, Free said, the Iraqi prime minister insisted: "No, I've got my own plan." By Sunday, Iraqi troops started appearing in Basra.

Maliki's plan involved deploying some 30,000 Iraqi troops from outside the Basra area, accompanied by 900 American trainers and mentors, and backed by US firepower.

British and Iraqi troops could not have done the same job without US firepower, Free said on his return to Britain in June. "We didn't have enough capacity in the air and we didn't have enough capability on the ground."

Some 4,000 British forces based at Basra aiport were left helping with logistics and medical support during the battles. Later, some 200 British soldiers went out to advise Iraqi troops rounding up rebel militia.
-------------------
It appears that Maliki stole the British plan idea to make himself look good. That and the Times Online states that "When Brigadier Julian Free, Major-General Barney White-Spunner deputy, arrived to discuss the situation with Mr al-Maliki at the presidential palace in Basra, he was made to wait outside." I think that if Maliki did steal the Brits plan, keeping them out of the loop would be a good way to hide it.

At 8/5/08 10:23 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: _____________GAZA STRIP:________
_______________WEST BANK:______________
_______________ISRAEL:______________

Ahh, the difference occupation makes.

At 8/4/08 04:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A buncha sites I'vde never heard of=bullshit.

LOL I get it, if it isn't mainstream media, its bullshit, got it....