Poem for the French

[yoda291]

you are in the wrong forum buddy boy.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?

Oh it was one of those. You know those posts where you have to ASSUME what someone is trying to say. The funny thing is, there was evidence to suggest danger from Iraq. Comparing WWII to the current war is nothing more than an apples to oranges tripe comparison. I am not blind to the opposing view, but I do know it is not well thought out nor rational. You are not going to convince me to change my mind, nor will you convince me you have the moral highground.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military.

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

I know I'll never convince you of my views, and I imply in no way that I am morally superior to you. However, you will notice that I have also not called you a "moron" or insulted you in any way or form. I believe that the original poster was coherent and had a post that was very definitely implying something that was fairly obvious. It was, in fact, your post that was relatively incoherent, making no sense except to perpetuate an insult. That was what I was trying to get at.

Wow you got me.

 

[GroundZero]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.

the swiss have never taken anyones side...

 

[SnapIT]

Oh please, is stupidity becoming a trademark of the American youth?

Or is that just another Bushism...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?

Oh it was one of those. You know those posts where you have to ASSUME what someone is trying to say. The funny thing is, there was evidence to suggest danger from Iraq. Comparing WWII to the current war is nothing more than an apples to oranges tripe comparison. I am not blind to the opposing view, but I do know it is not well thought out nor rational. You are not going to convince me to change my mind, nor will you convince me you have the moral highground.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military.

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

I know I'll never convince you of my views, and I imply in no way that I am morally superior to you. However, you will notice that I have also not called you a "moron" or insulted you in any way or form. I believe that the original poster was coherent and had a post that was very definitely implying something that was fairly obvious. It was, in fact, your post that was relatively incoherent, making no sense except to perpetuate an insult. That was what I was trying to get at.

Wow you got me.

If you roll your eyes enough you will implode and this world will be a better place... so keep it up...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.

yur liek teh smrt and stufflings....

Or just another idiot in the crowd...

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?

Oh it was one of those. You know those posts where you have to ASSUME what someone is trying to say. The funny thing is, there was evidence to suggest danger from Iraq. Comparing WWII to the current war is nothing more than an apples to oranges tripe comparison. I am not blind to the opposing view, but I do know it is not well thought out nor rational. You are not going to convince me to change my mind, nor will you convince me you have the moral highground.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military.

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

I know I'll never convince you of my views, and I imply in no way that I am morally superior to you. However, you will notice that I have also not called you a "moron" or insulted you in any way or form. I believe that the original poster was coherent and had a post that was very definitely implying something that was fairly obvious. It was, in fact, your post that was relatively incoherent, making no sense except to perpetuate an insult. That was what I was trying to get at.

Wow you got me.

If you roll your eyes enough you will implode and this world will be a better place... so keep it up...

If you troll enough your stigma as PCresources and a wanna be badass Swedish commando will not be forgotten.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Ah, the irony. You don't punctuate properly, use internet abbreviations, and sentence fragments, and I'm the incoherent one. Anyway, seeing as someone else clarified for you, I don't need to re-explain.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military

Huh? You call me a moron, and then tell me that Germany surrendered quickly in WWII? Wow. I can't even touch this. You need to re-think this, man. Read a book.

You fvcktard France was the opposition to Germany's military advance. Go back to your limp wristed piano playing parties.

Alright, relax. I was unclear on what you meant, I thought you meant the Germans surrendered quickly. Now take a deep breath, and stop throwing out childish middle-school insults. It is quite possible to argue your point without calling someone a lovely human or a fvcktard or a moron.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: jumpr
This whole thing reminds me of a second grade playground spat.

"Fine! You don't want to help me steal Billy's hat, Tom? I have better friends that will do bad stuff with me!"

Boy, perfect analogy for what's going on. You hit the nail right on the head.....

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

which simply ignores everything france has been doing in africa for say... the last 50 years

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: numark

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

i don't recall you being elected to office to make that decision

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

Good thing I'm living in good ol' US of A, where the good guys live - long live the new world order! :disgust:





















:evil:

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: numark

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

i don't recall you being elected to office to make that decision

That was quite possibly the dumbest rebuttal I have ever seen.

 

[Booster]

The French have yet once again proved their intelligence and genuine individualism of their culture to understand how stupid it is to fight in those idiotic wars. They let the others do that, the others don't like that but the French don't care. It's them who are still free and alive, unlike other heroic guys who didn't have much chance in this life belonging to big and powerful countries. Do you think it's a pleasure to die for some ideals of freedom? Remember, you only have one life. When it ends everything ends for you and it isn't a joke. If you can't survive in this world and give your life for someone's ideals (they are always someone's, not yours, you don't need them really), it's your loss and your fault. But will you be able to realize this loss? Not. Because you will be dead. Unlike the French.

 

[konichiwa]

What a condescending, jingoistic, self-righteous, proselytizing piece of trash. Go spew your "with us or against us" crap on FoxNews forums, please.