French Preisident a top chap

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Fixey
Ok, an 86 year old Vet gets lost during the D-Day cerimony, ends up on the wrong bus miles from Paris, his destination. A military guy see's the poor Buggar and finds out the problem. The old guy is then raced to an airfield where the French President is waiting to personally greet him. Gives him a ride back to Paris in his Official Jet and feeds him full of top quality French Red. Stayed and talked to the guy for the whole trip. How many world leaders would do that? Good on him!

Chirac, being French and all must have seen an opportunity for “good publicity” (if the 86 yo man was a conservitave white male from the US Chirac would have called him an “occupier” and sent him on his way.

Chirac was probably wanting him to explain what courage was and how it all works.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jakebrake
Chirac was probably wanting him to explain what courage was and how it all works.

Yeah, he should have stripped him and humiliated him by making obscene gestures, a trick learned from Bushies boys. . .😠

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ratty
Yeah, he should have stripped him and humiliated him by making obscene gestures, a trick learned from Bushies boys. . .😠

Or he could have logged on to a Cycling website and spewed his anti-Bush, anti-American and Anti-Military [censored]. I say, if you don't like your country, Run for office, Join the Military, shut up or MOVE!
:p

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jakebrake
Chirac was probably wanting him to explain what courage was and how it all works.

He would need an American Interpreter for that one!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Fixey
. How many world leaders would do that? Good on him!

First point...Chirac is not a WORLD leader...If he were, this picture of the statue that was made by an Iraqi artist named Kalat, who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad would have been dedicated to him.....

This artist was so grateful that the Americans liberated his country, he melted 3 of the fallen Saddam heads and made a memorial statue dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades. Kalat worked on this night and day for several months. To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jakebrake
Chirac was probably wanting him to explain what courage was and how it all works.

This is how it works...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by zapper
Or he could have logged on to a Cycling website and spewed his anti-Bush, anti-American and Anti-Military [censored]. I say, if you don't like your country, Run for office, Join the Military, shut up or MOVE!
:p

Yeah, he could have, however, to set the record straight, I do like my country, I have been in the military, I won't shut up, and I definately won't move to the US.

Oh my word, there are other countries other than the US buddie boy.

Oh and another thing, I am not anti-american and not anti-military. I just don't tolerate arrogant fools.

But, I'm not entering into a slurring match. You are entitled to your political views, but a cycling forum is not the appropriate sounding board for such uncalled for comments.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ratty
[B]Yeah, he could have, however, to set the record straight, I do like my country, I have been in the military,

Quoted post said:

I won't shut up,

Quoted post said:

I definately won't move to the US.

Quoted post said:

Oh my word, there are other countries other than the US buddie boy.

Quoted post said:

Oh and another thing, I am not anti-american and not anti-military.

Quoted post said:

But, I'm not entering into a slurring match. You are entitled to your political views, but a cycling forum is not the appropriate sounding board for such uncalled for comments.

Quoted post said:

[/B]I just don't tolerate arrogant fools

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by zapper
BTW I'm glad you decided not to shut up, saves me typing time...Thanks!

Oh, You won't move TO the U.S.? So, that means you reside elsewhere?

???...:p

Yes you are since you lumped the entire military in with the few who performed those acts you describe...

You are funny.. you come on here and post some ridiculous "anti-bush/military" [censored] and you dare to lecture me on my comments?. Cycling forum? What great incite to cycling did you provide by your original comments?

How do you live with yourself?

Funny, how those who start slinging huey get offended when it comes back in thy face...



BTW, I'm not throwing any slurs here...just telling like it is!

Zap you are a bloody Joke. Chirac does something Nobal and the school bullies have to slang him just because he has morals and wouldnt support your terrorist action in Iraq. Courage? Anyone in the US military has no room to be talking about courage. Shame you are not big enough to just say "Hay, well done" and accept a humanist action as a positive light in a time of very few possitives.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Fixey
Zap you are a bloody Joke. Chirac does something Nobal and the school bullies have to slang him just because he has morals and wouldnt support your terrorist action in Iraq. Courage? Anyone in the US military has no room to be talking about courage. Shame you are not big enough to just say "Hay, well done" and accept a humanist action as a positive light in a time of very few possitives.

Chirac did something noble? Like profit from a dictator while over 6,000 children starved to death a month? Purposely sabotage the enforcement of a UN resolution for his own political and financial gains?
If that is nobility, then it’s French nobility.

The chickens WILL come home to roost, your pathetic country as well as much of Europe is stuffed full of these Islamic jihad nut cases, it’s only a matter of time before you’re hosing the remains of your citizens off the sidewalk.
And it won’t stop with your “sensitivity and understanding” the enemy wants you to submit to Allah, or dead.

Your failure to understand this doctrine and your fear of taking action or doing something that might make you unpopular will be your downfall.

On the other hand, even if Kerry gets elected, another attack on our shores will only serve to unite the US.
History shows that when the US is living large (and fat and comfortable) it’s divided, when we are attacked there is NOTHING that can stand in our way.

According to some reports (I think it is either from Amnesty, Red Cross, or Human Rights Watch), the abuse may have been more widespread than what many top US officials are portraying it to be. However, this argument should belong more in the Bush/Kerry thread or Iraq thread.

On the topic of Chirac, I doubt that what he did was anything more than a publicity stunt. Let's look at the facts: It's the anniversary of D-Day, the guy is a WWII vet. He's lost. Had this guy been any other non-vet, whether American, French, liberal, conservative, rich, or poor, I doubt that the "military guy" would really go to such lengths nor would that lost person meet with Jacques Chirac.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by keydates
According to some reports (I think it is either from Amnesty, Red Cross, or Human Rights Watch), the abuse may have been more widespread than what many top US officials are portraying it to be. However, this argument should belong more in the Bush/Kerry thread or Iraq thread.

First, there was the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Some aberrant soldiers got out of line... and now they're having to face our justice system, and pay the price for their illegal behavior. That's how Americans handle wrong-doing. That's what makes us strong.

The other incident that stands out was the brutal slaying of American businessman Nicholas Berg by al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, apparently in retaliation for the Abu Ghraib abuses. Al-Zarqawi was filmed tortuously decapitating Berg while his fellow goons shouted "God is great!"

Which of these occurrences do you find more despicable? If you're a typical patriotic American, you were angry at the abuses by a few wayward soldiers and glad they're being brought to justice; but you were OUTRAGED at Berg's beheading by brutal Muslim extremists, something that's typical of the enemy we're facing.

But if you're a partisan Democrat or a member of the liberal mainstream media (but we repeat ourselves), just the opposite is true, at least if you go by the statements of these Democrats and the coverage of the media.

While Sen. Ted Kennedy's claims that "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management" got broad coverage, liberal news networks and newspapers gave only passing coverage to Berg's horrible murder.

Why? Because Berg's murder only proves that we really ARE at war with terrorists, and that doesn't do anything to hurt President Bush. The prison abuses, on the other hand, can be harped on by liberals looking for an excuse -- ANY excuse -- to body-slam the President and his team on the war on terror.

Berg's grisly murder was news for maybe a day. The prison abuses are STILL at the top of the page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and STILL the lead story for Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Espada9
[B]Chirac did something noble? Like profit from a dictator while over 6,000 children starved to death a month? Purposely sabotage the enforcement of a UN resolution for his own political and financial gains?
If that is nobility, then it’s French nobility.

[QUOTE][While Rumsfeld was also busy selling Hussein arms back in 1983 - damn that photgrapher anyway !]

The chickens WILL come home to roost, your pathetic country as well as much of Europe is stuffed full of these Islamic jihad nut cases, it’s only a matter of time before you’re hosing the remains of your citizens off the sidewalk.
And it won’t stop with your “sensitivity and understanding” the enemy wants you to submit to Allah, or dead.

[QUOTE][The only remains being hosed were the ones in New York and the bodies of those Spanish people who were sacrificed
in an atrocity by an expedient spanish goverment who supported
Bush and his band of pathological liars]

Your failure to understand this doctrine and your fear of taking action or doing something that might make you unpopular will be your downfall.
On the other hand, even if Kerry gets elected, another attack on our shores will only serve to unite the US.
History shows that when the US is living large (and fat and comfortable) it’s divided, when we are attacked there is NOTHING that can stand in our way.

[/B][All goverments give in to terrorism - it always happens. Look at how Reagan bleated on about not giving in to terrorism - while all the time he was selling arms to free hostages : you can never trust what a goverment says, even when it denies it]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Espada9
First, there was the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Some aberrant soldiers got out of line... and now they're having to face our justice system, and pay the price for their illegal behavior. That's how Americans handle wrong-doing. That's what makes us strong.

The other incident that stands out was the brutal slaying of American businessman Nicholas Berg by al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, apparently in retaliation for the Abu Ghraib abuses. Al-Zarqawi was filmed tortuously decapitating Berg while his fellow goons shouted "God is great!"

Which of these occurrences do you find more despicable? If you're a typical patriotic American, you were angry at the abuses by a few wayward soldiers and glad they're being brought to justice; but you were OUTRAGED at Berg's beheading by brutal Muslim extremists, something that's typical of the enemy we're facing.
[Both acts are equally reprehensible : but it is incumbent upon a sovereign power to stick to the Geneva Conventions upon which it has agreed.
This is the issue.]

But if you're a partisan Democrat or a member of the liberal mainstream media (but we repeat ourselves), just the opposite is true, at least if you go by the statements of these Democrats and the coverage of the media.

While Sen. Ted Kennedy's claims that "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management" got broad coverage, liberal news networks and newspapers gave only passing coverage to Berg's horrible murder.

Why? Because Berg's murder only proves that we really ARE at war with terrorists, and that doesn't do anything to hurt President Bush. The prison abuses, on the other hand, can be harped on by liberals looking for an excuse -- ANY excuse -- to body-slam the President and his team on the war on terror.
[Why then is Mr.berg's family taking legal action against the US
goverment ?]

Berg's grisly murder was news for maybe a day. The prison abuses are STILL at the top of the page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and STILL the lead story for Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
[Let;s be honest here - it was only through media exposure that
the ill treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghuraib was uncovered.
But look here is todays Financial Times quoting sources that
Rumsfeld actually authorised the treatment of prisoners outside the Geneva Conventions - and before reply to me that this is a lie
instead will you please contact the author of the piece with your rebuttal evidence ?]

By : Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington at June 10 2004 1:17 | Last Updated: June 10 2004 1:17

The Pentagon on Wednesday sought to counter accusations that the Bush administration sanctioned the use of torture in the war on terrorism.

The move came as the White House faced mounting criticism this week following the leak of internal reports by Pentagon and Justice department lawyers that said some forms of torture could be allowed under US and international law.
An official said a Pentagon memo in April last year outlining permissible interrogation methods contained none of the legal arguments in the draft reports.
The legal arguments had no impact on how prisoners were interrogated, the official said.
The Pentagon lawyers said in the draft report, drawn up in March 2003, that President George W. Bush's authority as commander-in-chief could override any legal prohibitions on torture.
The Pentagon convened the working group, which included military and civilian lawyers and representatives from the Defense Intelligence Agency, to provide guidance to the US Southern Command, which oversees the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, after questions arose about the "effectiveness and appropriateness" of interrogation methods, the official said.
Donald Rumsfeld, Defence secretary, had initially approved 17 interrogation methods not included in the army interrogation manual for use in Guantanamo in December 2002 and January 2003. But the military then suspended use of the methods. General James Hill, who heads the Southern Command, said last week that he asked for the legal review because of "consternation [over] whether, in fact, we were doing the right thing".
The Pentagon official said only 10 of those 17 methods were used, and all of those were on one detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been the intended 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks.
Following the recommendations of the working group, Mr Rumsfeld approved 24 interrogation methods, which consisted of seven methods not included in the army manual on interrogations, a long-standing manual describing permitted interrogation methods. Four of the techniques required approval by Mr Rumsfeld. The Pentagon has not released details on most of these techniques.
The Pentagon official said working group members all agreed that the methods included in the April 16 memo did not amount to torture. He added that the memo, in contrast to the broader conclusions reached in the working group draft report, applied specifically to interrogations carried out at Guantanamo Bay, and did not apply to suspected terrorists captured in Iraq.
Critics of the administration say efforts by the Bush administration to weaken restrictions on torture sent a signal that encouraged the kind of brutalisation of prisoners that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limerickman
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Espada9
[B]Chirac did something noble? Like profit from a dictator while over 6,000 children starved to death a month? Purposely sabotage the enforcement of a UN resolution for his own political and financial gains?
If that is nobility, then it’s French nobility.

[QUOTE][While Rumsfeld was also busy selling Hussein arms back in 1983 - damn that photgrapher anyway !]

The chickens WILL come home to roost, your pathetic country as well as much of Europe is stuffed full of these Islamic jihad nut cases, it’s only a matter of time before you’re hosing the remains of your citizens off the sidewalk.
And it won’t stop with your “sensitivity and understanding” the enemy wants you to submit to Allah, or dead.

Quoted post said:

[The only remains being hosed were the ones in New York and the bodies of those Spanish people who were sacrificed
in an atrocity by an expedient spanish goverment who supported
Bush and his band of pathological liars]

Your failure to understand this doctrine and your fear of taking action or doing something that might make you unpopular will be your downfall.
On the other hand, even if Kerry gets elected, another attack on our shores will only serve to unite the US.
History shows that when the US is living large (and fat and comfortable) it’s divided, when we are attacked there is NOTHING that can stand in our way.

[/B][All goverments give in to terrorism - it always happens. Look at how Reagan bleated on about not giving in to terrorism - while all the time he was selling arms to free hostages : you can never trust what a goverment says, even when it denies it] [/B]

Sorry Limerickman, terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention seeks to protect innocent civilians by keeping soldiers in uniform, and by defining those combatants who don't wear uniforms as being outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the priviledges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war. Not only are terrorists not a government or a nation, I'd put money on the fact that they've never even signed the Geneva Convention.

Oh, and it wasn't "media exposure" that uncovered the ill treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The Army itself disclosed back in January that abuses had taken place and a full investigation was under way. It was only after pictures surfaced that they became interested.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Jakebrake
Sorry Limerickman, terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention seeks to protect innocent civilians by keeping soldiers in uniform, and by defining those combatants who don't wear uniforms as being outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the priviledges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war. Not only are terrorists not a government or a nation, I'd put money on the fact that they've never even signed the Geneva Convention.

Oh, and it wasn't "media exposure" that uncovered the ill treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The Army itself disclosed back in January that abuses had taken place and a full investigation was under way. It was only after pictures surfaced that they became interested.

Cynical pack of [censored] arnt we. Look where we end up from giving Quedos to one guy. FYI im not french nor am I a great fan of them, They, as a state, carried out a terrorist act in my country not so long ago. Here is the Amusing thing, if I say something Nice about the French Zapper et al get on the band wagon and attack him. The ignorant idiots cant get over themselfs for one second and see my original post for what it was, a compliment to a human being. Was it a political stunt? mabey, who knows and who cares. By attacking him just because he didnt agree with the US Zapper and friends have shown themselfs for what they are, Arrogant jokes!

And my final contribution to this thread. Let's applaud Bush for atleast riding a mountain bike, and falling off it like the rest of us. Now, can we agree to disagree, and talk about more important things, like what groupset do you think Bush has on his bike.