0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 08:58 am
Why don't you just call them (freedom fries) CHIPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

And what you call chips CRISPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

Or would this cause too much confusion for the average American?


Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:14 am
Most (many?) are already confused. They think the French is our enemy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:19 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Why don't you just call them (freedom fries) CHIPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

And what you call chips CRISPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

Or would this cause too much confusion for the average American?


Wink


Another idea would be, to call them "frites" as those do, who invented them.

But since these European aborigines speak the enemy language as well ...



Btw: The first reference to French fried potatoes in the USA was in 1894 in O. Henry's Rolling Stones, "Our countries are great friends. We have given you Lafayette and French fried potatoes." (According to the Food Reference Web site)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:21 am
Thanks ci

Hey I hope you don't think I'm becoming anti american. I sometimes wonder this myself. The fact is the rest of the world has had a lot to complain about American behaviour this last year or so, and sometimes I have a pop at some American sillyness which isnt really justified.

My irritation with American policy is just that, never with individuals.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:30 am
Well they could make a start

Hey gimme a large pommes frites would'ya

You want la sauce Hollandaise with that?

No, and hold le moutard thanks

OK bonjour

Have a nice jour yesself
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:31 am
http://www.belgianfries.com/images/mainpage1.gif


Frites website
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 10:32 am
You just don't get it do you. Someone's gotta be the butt. Usually it's the Polish accept for the Polish people; they pick on the Italians. Now, since we're pretending we care about Muslims all of the sudden, we can't exactly go around voicing our hatred of towel heads anymore and therefore... the French have to pull double duty. :wink: Dennis Miller says he would call the French scumbags… but that would of course be a disservice...


... to bags… …filled… …with scum.

Now that's a funny joke... and the "French" isn't the funny part. It was funny when he said it about "OJ" too.

The fact that Chirac's mouth is approximately 23 sizes larger than his perceived backbone also helps to make the French a perfect target. But that's not to say the French people didn't earn some of the ball-breaking. Some of them were painting swastikas on our stars and stripes and that is a little too direct to not be taken as ungrateful.
But the bottom line is; making fun of those gay, sissy-assed bastards is fun. Get it?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 10:54 am
making fun of those gay, sissy-assed bastards is fun.

Oh I see like Chirac shoved a gallic finger up Bush's war plans? Yes I did find that funny.

But I suppose you have a point. We English like to laugh at the Irish.

I recall a joke about 2 Arabs who go to live in the US. They agree a competition to see who can become the most genuinely American in a year.

So they meet a year later. First says hey I went to the ball game last night, ate ribs fries and drank a few Buds. Take delivery of a new SUV Jeep, planning a big party for Thanksgiving...etc etc. After 5 minutes of this, the other one says **** off towelhead.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 11:09 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 11:29 am
OK Bill I think we see eye to eye on a few things!
Hows the no smoking campaign going?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 11:34 am
No sweat, thanks for asking. Suffering is over accept for the part about wondering why I was too stupid to do it sooner. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 11:39 am
Good for you, going to change your avatar, or keeping it for old time's sake?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 12:02 pm
Thands again. I haven't yet decided about the avatar yet. Reminders don't bother me none. I love the smell of smoke too! <shrugs>

Ps. Besides, it's almost Cheesehead Season anyway!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 12:25 pm
Saison du boule de fromage, as those gay, sissy-assed bastards would say - but only, if they had just a small amount of culture.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 03:40 pm
Steve...love the joke.. Laughing
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:01 pm
I think the best-tasting chips I ever had were in Leiden, Holland, and they were in a paper bag just like Walter's post. The mayonnaise is a great feature, the Brits haven't quite cottoned on to that yet.

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this evening at a local cinema. Not a great film, he seems to pull his punches rather, and he appears to have finished it in a hurry, but enough material is there to make Mr Bush and his coterie look very sick indeed. A sad film. I hope everyone takes the opportunity to see it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
You have nowhere provided demonstrable proof of Iraqi support of or training of AQ personnel.


Question
Quote:
demonstrable proof
Question

I didn't claim I did.

By the way, you haven't provided
Quote:
demonstrable proof
that Saddam did not support or provide training facilities for AQ personnel.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:11 pm
Interesting to think what the Sunday papers will say about Tony and his lies.

The Independent prepared the ground today, and accused No 10 of misleading Hutton on the Dr Kelly inquiry. Hoon, Blair, Scarlett and Campbell did not tell Hutton all they knew, and when they knew it.
So Hutton arrived at the wrong conclusions. He must be delighted.

"Oh, what a tangled web..."

I think Tony is toast.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:20 pm
ON DEMONSTRABLE PROOF

what Santanta wrote:
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:41 am Post: 787813 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ican711nm wrote:
First, ignoring the horror of Saddam's continuing murder of his own citizens, Saddam was providing financing, training facilities, and equipment to terrorists: most notably to Al Qaeda and Palestinian Terrorists in non-formal ... relationships. Secondly, he was providing (but not formally) ... sanctuary to some of those Al Qaeda who fled Afghanistan.



There is not a shred of these specioius contentions for which you have provided credible evidence--and i doubt that you can.



ican711nm wrote:
I and many many others provided a tad more than a shred of evidence in the preceding forum VI.


Quote:
a tad more than a shred of evidence


Setanta wrote:
You have nowhere provided demonstrable proof of Iraqi support of or training of AQ personnel.


Quote:
demonstrable proof


They aren't the same thing are they Setanta?

Quote:
a tad more than a shred of evidence
does not equal
Quote:
demonstrable proof


I infer that when you found I and others had actually provided some evidence that Saddam supported or provided training facilities to AQ personnel, you decided to change your claim, while failing to own up to the fact that you changed your claim. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:34 pm
HERE'S A TAD MORE THAN A SHRED OF EVIDENCE
From: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:37 pm 754667
--------------------------------------------------
ican711nm wrote:
What does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.

Facts shown in boldface black.
Nimh questions shown in boldface violet.
ican answers shown in boldface blue.

1. Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian terrorists
- How does the fact that Saddam financed Palestinian terrorists imply that he "was secretly financing and equipping" Al Qaeda around the world"? The fact that Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian Terrorists implies he probably financed other terrorists as well; that in turn implies that Al Qaeda was probably among those other terrorists that Saddam financed, because he had no reason not to help and lots of reason (e.g., hatred of Americans) to help Al Qaeda.

2. Osama declared Saddam an infidel prior to 9/11/2001 but did not terrorize Saddam (or any member of his government or any Iraqi citizen) as a consequence. - How does the assumption that al Qaeda "did not terrorize Saddam" mean Saddam must therefore have financed and equipped them? The fact that Osama declared Saddam an infidel but did not terrorize him or his people implies that Osama's declaration was probably made to mislead Americans into thinking Osama and Saddam had nothing to do with each other; this in turn implies that Saddam probably had lots to do with each other; that in turn implies that Saddam probably secretly helped Osama in some ways to murder Americans.

3. A Boeing 727 fuselage and training site was discovered in northern Iraq [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that this training site existed in Iraq implies that Saddam probably helped aid Osama train some of his Al Qaeda people in Iraq; that in turn implies that Saddam probably helped Osama train some known murderers of Americans; that in turn implies these contacts probably amounted to something.

4. Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and distributed $billions of Iraqi oil revenue to both secret and non-secret accounts all around the world. - How does the fact that Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and siphoned off the loot to his secret accounts mean that he must have been financing Al Qaeda with it (as opposed to, say, stuff his own pockets with it, like every other dictator)? The fact that Saddam sent much of that revenue to secret accounts as well as non-secret accounts all around the world implies that he was probably using some of that money for purposes other than stuffing his own pockets; that in turn implies that he probably wanted those other purposes kept secret; that in turn implies that he was probably financing terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.

5. Some members of Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan after the US entry into Afghanistan, and through Iran entered Iraq to join up with other Al Qaeda in Iraq who were there prior to the US entry into Afghanistan and Iraq. [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that many Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan for Iraq after the US 10/2001 entry into Afghanistan and prior to the US 3/2003 entry into Iraq implies that Saddam probably provided them sanctuary in Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably had working agreements in place prior to the US entry into Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably were working together to murder Americans and that work probably did amount to something.


6. More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq. - How does the fact that "More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq" - i.e., when Saddam wasn't even in power anymore - imply that he must have been equipping them? The fact that more Al Qaeda went into Iraq after Saddam's removal implies that the Al Qaeda probably did that in their attempt to restore the Oil-for-Food revenues lost to them when Saddam was removed.

7. Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 implies that their contacts were probably deliberate and productive and did amount to something.

8. Osama and Saddam hated Americans and did not willingly share intelligence with the US -- In other words, they tried to keep secrets from the US (we too late learned of when they succeeded). - How does the fact that "Saddam did not willingly share intelligence with the US"- he kept secrets from us! - mean that he must have been financing Al-Qaeda (Hint: most countries in the world do not willingly share intelligence with states they disagree with).? The fact that Osama and Saddam probably shared secrets with each other but not with other governments implies that Saddam was probably aiding Osama accomplish his objectives of murdering Americans; that in turn probably explains why this secrecy led the 9/11 Commission to falsely conclude that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything .

Again, what does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 03:55:01