Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating
table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians. Everything
inside them is color-coded."

The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best;
everything inside them is in alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers.
They always understand when you have a few parts left over at the
end and when the job takes longer than you said it would."

But the fifth surgeon, Dr. Morris Fishbein, shuts them all up when
he observes: "The French are the easiest to operate on. There's no
guts, no heart, no balls and no spine. Plus the head and ass are
interchangeable."

..and we have not enough middle fingers for you.

...and we don't have the pinocchio nose of G.W. Bush

Have a look...

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/amerihum1.html

Jamie, do you know if it's these surgeons belong to thee team working to clone G.W. Bush ?

Here is a pic showing the "original" surrounded by several clones of his head.

The scientist team admits they still have to work on the outside visual aspect. But they claim that what's INSIDE the clones heads is 100% equal to what's inside the original's one... or even better.

Q: How do you call an American with an IQ reaching 80 ?

A: a town.

------

Q: Where will you find intellifentd Americans ?

A: In a B52 taking of

Q: Who are they ?
A: The bombs, It's the reason why the crew throw them out during the flight.

---
A lot of the American soldiers in Iraq are not (yet) Americans but mexican immigrants. As reward, they will be granted to American nationality after the war.

It will be a really good decision for USA: When done, the American IQ average will be MULTIPLIED BY TWO !!!

It will be a really good decision for Mexico as well : When done, the MEXICAN IQ average will ALSO be multiplied by 2!!!

That's a winner-winner deal...

What happens when a Frenchman immigrates to the USA? It lowers the average IQ of each nation.

What happens when Americans immigrate to France, then ?

They loose their way and get finally trapped in Monrovia. But it is not a problem : Some frogs get them back in safe place

Useless to say, the operation above was just done to prevent a drastic drop if Liberian IQ... ;D

What is the difference between an American and a Yogurt ?

After some time, the yogurt develop some kind of culture...

Yeah, that's France for you, sixty million jokes and not one funny comedian.

Boy, I sure am glad you frogs gave the answers to your questions, otherwise I NEVER, EVER, would have come up with the answers.

The French must come from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Oh, and Pierre, please save your BATH water for me; I’m all out of Perrier.

Do you know what Pierre calls that useless piece of skin on the end of his penis? His mother.

Really, Pierre, you should be nice to me. If that dog had not beaten me upstairs I would be your father.

You're so dumb, the only thing you got on your IQ test was drool.

So I asked your mom for some material to use against you, but she couldn't stop screaming "Oh my God! You're so big!"

Your mother is not really so bad. I hear she would give you the hair off her back.

I should leave Pierre alone; I just realized why he is so upset. He just found out that his girlfriend has a higher sperm count than he does.

Marc, you don't need to use an insult, just use your breath.

Marc, I would have been your father, but the guy ahead of me in line had correct change

When it comes to I.Q. points, you lose them every time you go to the bathroom

I'm trying to see things from the French perspective, but, I can't seem to get my head up my ass as far as they can.

Marc, there are two requirements to be a smart ass, don't worry though, you got the second part down pat.

Your mother is so ugly, that when she entered an ugly contest, they said, "Sorry, no professionals."

marc is so dumb, he has to take his clothes off to count to 21 and even then he only gets to 20-1/2.

We tried to keep this post running with nice jokes, but andy made it dirty.
I'm curious, did someone laugh with such kind of jokes?
In France , only the very low class of our society use such language.

Bad taste ,andy ! You missed a good opportunity to shut up.

After a second deep think, about

Plus the head and ass are
interchangeable."

I must honestly admit there is a part of realism here :
"Je ne pense pas qu'à ça, mais, quand même, ça m'arrive et, pas seulement quand je me rase"
on the othere way, some mornings, "j'ai la gueule dans le cul.". It seems to be related with what and how much i drunk the previous evening;

So, Andy.

I'm trying to see things from the French perspective, but, I can't seem to get my head up my ass as far as they can.

To succeed in this exercice, you must.
1) Have an head, (may be you could buy one somewhere ?)
2) Spend a long evening drinking in this order
     a) Whisky
     b) pastis,
     c) gin
     d) cognac
repeat 'a' to 'd' as much as you can.
3) The following morning, go at work as usual.

GOT IT !! : You will find yourself with your face into your ass.

About what's remains of Andy's salvo, no problem, after all, "L'important c'est de participer", You certainly did your best... We are used here to tell about that:
"Vaut toujours mieux dire ça que des conneries ou du mal de son voisin" (Better telling that rather than stupid things or bad talk about your neighbours)

NB : Due to geographic exeption, This last recomandation about neighbours doesn't apply to Canadians and just partly to Mexicans.

Gents,

Posts such as the topic of this thread invite turnabout, and that's fair play.

Disparaging mothers, fathers, and Mexicans is not called for. The argument in this blog is between America & co. and France & co., Pave and its trolls.

Cat fighting, sissy kicking, and pissing matches are all fine and good without defaming your opposition's mother. The parents are not advancing your opposition's arguments; and I've no idea why Mexicans have been called out.

A word about insulting your opposition, there's little point to it if has no bite. To bite an insult should be relevant and clever but it must be intelligible. When nobody can understand your jokes, well, it just advertises that you are a very dull fellow.

Regards,
DGB

Boy, I got out “zinged” by marc!

Yes, you all are correct, I did miss an opportunity to shut up. I am sorry if anyone was offended.

To turn this thread around, let me ask a question about French Defense Minsister Michele Alliot-Marie who was in my fair city (DC) yesterday. I was outside the White House yesterday on my lunch break, hoping to see her, but she was with Rummy at the Pentagon.

My paper this AM in story about visit said “In Paris….speculation that France might send troops to Iraq…through NATO. The Minister said France is open to NATO taking a role there.”

Is that correct? I have not read anything about that in the paper before now.

I thought France pulled out of NATO - militarily - waaaayy back with de Gaulle. Wasn't that part of the reason NATO headquarters moved out of Paris way back when? Because France didn't want to participate in NATO military deployments?

My paper this AM in story about visit said “In Paris….speculation that France might send troops to Iraq…through NATO. The Minister said France is open to NATO taking a role there.”
Is that correct? I have not read anything about that in the paper before now.

I did not see anything directly about this visit. But indeed some things look moving a bit about handing over sovereignty to iraqis :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

Below the summary, you will find a bunch of links, some of them telling a bit about France's position.

Which, for now looks coherent since the begining:

For their part, France and Germany have pledged substantial debt relief to Iraq once sovereignty is restored. Paris has also suggested it could help in police training in Iraq and offer advice in the drafting of a new constitution.

about troops

Villepin said France had no plans now to send troops to Iraq but added: "We shall have the opportunity to look in detail at this when a government has been formed in Iraq...We shall see what their demands are as far as security is concerned."

In fact, all further step from France is linked to the same condition :
Withdraw sovereignty to Iraqis...

Paris has also suggested it could help in police training in Iraq and offer advice in the drafting of a new constitution.

Yes, by all means, let the French give people advise about drafting constitutions. They've certainly had enough practice. How many constitutions have you guys had since the Revolution? Five, six? More? Either France just really enjoys writing constitutions, or (just maybe) they're not very good at getting it right the first time (or second, or third...) French participation could explain the smashing success of the proposed EU constitution.

Instead, maybe they should take constitutional advice from the nation that has the oldest working constitution in the world - the United States of America.

Beo,
All posts like yours accomplish is to inflame the French inferiority complex, making them hate America more. But don't get me wrong, it's still good fun.

Well, BEO, I was under the same assumption as you about France and NATO, which is why the story so surprised me.

If France withdrew in, what, 1966 from the military structure, it would have to renew the military ties with NATO. Certainly, the summit in Brussels to get Europe to establish it own defense force will not be ready to send any troops anywhere for some time.

Perhaps this is just rhetoric to try and improve ties?

Pierre: Thanks for the links….What newspapers do you get your news from, or do you mostly get news from the internet?

BEO,

The French have had between 12-15 constitutions, depending on how you sort them out, since the 1789 proclamation of the Constituent Assemblée constituante (1791 [the First Republic was proclaimed in 1792], 1793, 1795, 1799, 1802 [La Constitution du 16 Thermidor An X, proclaiming Napoléon Bonaparte Premier consul à vie], 1804 [Senatus-Consulte Organique du 28 Floreal An XII, establishing the emperor], 1848 [establishing the II Republic], 1852 establishing the Second Empire], 1875 [formalizing the III Republic], 1945 [establishing a French provisional government], 1946 [establishing the IV Republic], and 1958 [establishing the V Republic]).

In addition there have been two constitutional charters (1814, 1830) and sandwiched between them a constitutional act regularizing imperial rule (1815).

The Vichy government was legally established under the Third Republic's governing constitution by Constitutional Act No.2 of 07.11.40, Article II of which effectively junked the establishing document. The Vichy government was then regularized by Constitutional Act No.7 0f 01.27.41.

The French constitution then is not so much a document of establishing and perduring national principles of government as a catch-up codification of the contemporary politics in play.

Valéry Giscard d‘Estaing headed the European Convention that drafted the ungainly and inelegant EU Constitution.

So, yes, your cynicism above is not misplaced.

Regards,
DGB

Andy,

Twelve nations signed the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The treaty provided the legal and contractual basis for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In 1966, France withdrew from NATO's integrated military structure though not from the Alliance.

This, of course, is a very neat trick since the Alliance is foremost a military entity. So France effectively maintained the benefits of Alliance security without the pesky Alliance obligations of military support.

America under the Bush administration no longer winks at the French vis mortua and former courtesies and privileges treating the French pari passu as military partners within the Alliance have been discontinued.

Regards,
DGB

In fact, all further step from France is linked to the same condition: Withdraw sovereignty to Iraqis...

Do you mean something more like "withdraw and grant"? At any rate, Iraq will not be fully soverign until it is capable of providing its own security. Withdrawl before that point would be destructive, and it's been stated and re-stated that this condition must be met prior to withdrawl. So France is offering aid to Iraq, on the condition that Iraq won't need the aid when the requirements to recieve it are met? I'd call that a hollow promise. It's like offering a drowning person help if they can just reach the shore.

If you use the American method of counting constitutions, then I think the first French one would be in 1804 (it seems you're allowed to write off false starts under US rules). Japan also has an excellent constitution - oh, wait, France had nothing to do with that one either.

Back to the topic -

What's the difference between a Frenchman and a nickle?
Any nickle is worth at least five cents.

So when is Frn going to pull out of The Ivory Coast and Congo? Have there been any timetables or deadlines for self rule in those interventions?
By the way Marc, since both are economically unviable why does Frn bother to intervene? Surely those people must be left to their own exertions until they are ready to become Democracies.

No, until those inferior people evolve into something with a right for self-rule, they need to be directed by France. It's for their own good, you see.

both are economically unviable why does Frn bother to intervene?

Because there is a large French community living there, and they need protection, that the local armies are not able to provide .
Because many major French firm operating there, and the instability is not a benefit for the French economy.
A side consequence wil be that a destructive civil war for the country may be avoided by this intervention.
These intervention are legal, approved by the UN.

Please notice that France intervene not to make a war, but to prevent a war .

Wrong.
France intervened to keep the Africans (who are unfit for self rule by your condemation) in thrawl of their French overlords. Who continue to exploit them from now until the end of time. Takeing profit and treasure on the Africans labor.
Your protecting French companies - Flilthy lucor stolen from its rightful owner. Calling it approved by the UN doesn't make it right.

The French armys are state sponsored organized crime.
SO no timetable or set of conditions for leaving?
Is it any wonder we all laugh at you when your Domi or Jacque talk at us about conditions of American withdrawl from Iraq?

Yes, by all means, let the French give people advise about drafting constitutions. They've certainly had enough practice. How many constitutions have you guys had since the Revolution? Five, six? More? Either France just really enjoys writing constitutions, or ....

The first suggestion is the good one, French LOVE writing constitutions, laws and rules. We have PLENTY of them now. So, what ever we are doing, we are sure to fit at least one low and dismiss two others...

With such enthusiasm and practice, I can tell without a bit of chauvinism that we are the best all over the world in constitution drafting.

When comes the time to FOLLOW what we have drafted... then, may be, we are a bit crap. OK, but nobody, even a French is perfect.

So, drafting constitution for Iraq is certainly a great idea, as it will be up to Iraqis to enforce it. I am sure everything will go fine.

However, I bet that what French propose to do is motivated by who in Iraq we shall work with and establish good links. Beeig close to who handle the power and the police is always helpfull.

So France is offering aid to Iraq, on the condition that Iraq won't need the aid when the requirements to recieve it are met?

This one from Doug is not that easy to dismiss... If you wait until any country or single person is perfectly able to handle freedom to let them free... Then, freedom is not something for humankind.
Such work as setting the frame for a country in a new situation cannot be done under the authority kept by an occupant. The one who will have to enforce what is decided MUST BE THE BOSS when the decision is in building.
Other aspect : Can you really imagine how things would go if French where active in Iraq under US absolute authority ? It would be a nightmare for both and a guarantee of tremendous mess for Iraqi people.

Andy

Pierre: Thanks for the links….What newspapers do you get your news from, or do you mostly get news from the internet?

Both radio, TV, Internet and newspapers. Internet is great to get the last new on a situation you already follow. radio and TV is good and easy to get "new" news. Bothe newspaper and internet is OK to get analysis and see how the same fact can get different interpretations

What newspapers ? I can hardly dare to tell you : "Libération" and "Le Monde". Please keep this secret ;D

Ivory Coast and Congo are independant.

The same as there is no timetable for U.S to withdraw for Korea , Japan, or even Netherlands, or Italy, France doesn't plan to leave these 2 countries.

Iraq is a different case. US administrates Iraq, that is consequently not independant and France doesn't administrate Ivory Coast nor Congo any more.

The difference is simple. I don't understand why you don't get it , Mt Mayeau.

This one from Doug is not that easy to dismiss... If you wait until any country or single person is perfectly able to handle freedom to let them free... Then, freedom is not something for humankind.
Such work as setting the frame for a country in a new situation cannot be done under the authority kept by an occupant. The one who will have to enforce what is decided MUST BE THE BOSS when the decision is in building.
Other aspect : Can you really imagine how things would go if French where active in Iraq under US absolute authority ? It would be a nightmare for both and a guarantee of tremendous mess for Iraqi people.

I think I agree with that almost to the letter, but I also think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "security". Iraq's process will be a process of years, not months, and the US will only be there for the first year or two. By definition, full sovereignty will not exist until the transitional government is abolished and the majority of troops have left; before we've left, Iraq will have fully sufficient police and a fledgling army. We cannot withdraw if Iraq has insufficient security to maintain it's own rule. So after Iraq has sufficient police, France will help train police. I bet they'll appreciate it.

Jordan is training police under US authority without apparent problems, by the way.

The difference is simple. I don't understand why you don't get it , Mt Mayeau.

I suspect that he doesn't get it because France has been in the business of maintaining puppet dictatorships for so long. How many excursions has France made into Africa in the last half-century under the guise of "protecting French citizens and interests"? I lost count when I was in my teens. What they've actually accomplished, of course, is served to keep pawns from being toppled by popular uprisings and civil wars.

It's cute how, on one hand, you say it's right for France to prevent these wars, but on the other hand the people are supposed to prove they're ready for self-rule by ridding themselves of their tyrants. The cognitive disonnance of maintaining both those beliefs must be staggering. I applaud whatever sanity you retain.

ya'll dumb asses need to get real jobs

The difference is simple. I don't understand why you don't get it , Mt Mayeau.

I suspect that he doesn't get it because France has been in the business of maintaining puppet dictatorships for so long. How many excursions has France made into Africa in the last half-century under the guise of "protecting French citizens and interests"? I lost track years ago. What they've actually accomplished, of course, is to keep pawns from being toppled by popular uprisings and civil wars.

It's cute how, on one hand, you say it's right for France to prevent these wars, but on the other hand the people are supposed to prove they're ready for self-rule by ridding themselves of their tyrants. The cognitive disonnance of maintaining both those beliefs must be staggering. I applaud whatever sanity you retain.

Sorry for the duplicate - I thought it timed out.

Doug has outlined my reason for not "getting it" rather well. Twice in fact!

There are people camped out with banners and picket signs blocking the enterance to a Parisian McDonalds. Americans are accosted on the street in France.
By Marc's calculus we have the right to invade France, because our citizens are in jepardy and our economic interests are threatened.
Further we can keep our proposed invasion force on French soil indefinitely, because we never know when another outbreak of anti-American mischieve will happen.

Americans are accosted on the street in France.
Really ? Frankly speaking , I doubt about this. let's be clear, they are some idiots, but it can't be a general behavior.
Americans who came to France after all what happened between our countries must especially be better welcomed !

There are people camped out with banners and picket signs blocking the enterance to a Parisian McDonalds
And what ? do you think the whole france accept this ?
Additionnaly, their motication is not anti-americanism,they want simply a better salary.

Damien Bennet,
Your comment about not dragging family members into the topic makes it impossible for me to tell some hilarious jokes about Phrench sexual proclivities.

Usually ,cultural jokes are based on amplifing
something quaint or uncommon in a culture.
Generally the quaint entity being obvious ,you can easily spot the exagaration and have a good laugh.
But as much i can understand French being described as lazy or undermining because of the repeated strikes for instance.
But i don't get the sexual allusions.
I already was schocked to see it's common in American psyche to quote in various media the french chicks as being "hot" mixing the idea
of the french having a mistress /frenchs lovers/
latin guy/or "houlalala"(we say more WAOW than houlala...).
The only real latin influence on France today is in the writing, to make it short Spanish/italians for instance consider France as being cold and very conservative ,France belongs more to the north than the south in this aspect.
The only grief could be on the word mistress ,but
we only gave you the word and books that go with it ,most like military terms ,that doesn't mean much .
To sum up democracies uncover some deviant women/guys every mollah will tell you if you don't believe me.How about the hot american bitches?
I'll let this to Lenny Kravitz .
However how can u guys imagine France as Vichyistes(ultra conservatives)
and depraved(anarchists) at the same time?
Is there two kind of frenchmen ?(i thought they
were all the same...)

Hmm ,here is something really funny:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=796

(A Not-So-Friendly Disagreement Between U.S. and France David Cagle)

OK
Q. What does the Phrench shepherds children say when he leaves in the morning?
A. Daaaaaaad come Baaaaaaaaack.

Great comic, Avenger. ;)

You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact.
There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods.

There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster The situation is nearly
hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into t! he water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer.
Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is - it's George W. Bush!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?

Too much setup, brevity is the soul of wit. If you're not gonna hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast. Example -

Jacques Chirac and a weasel are dead in the road - how do you tell them apart?

There will be skidmarks in front of the weasel.

Indeed Kanuck, some dilemas are unpossible to solve.

Here is another one in a bit less dramatic situation.

By a nice sunny day in summer, a customer come in your shop and buy a "bretzel. This bloke, obviously an American tourist, Extract a 50€ bank note folded in four from his pocket.

Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is - it's George W. Bush!

Then, you notice that TWO bank notes where folded together. You are now in front of the conflict between your honest morality and your self interest :

Will you tell about this to your co-worker ?

-----------------
For French speakers :
Quelle est la différence entre George Bush et un TGV? - Le TGV s'arrête quand il déraille.

-------------

But the best jokes about G.W. Bush comes from G.W. Bush

-------

The world is at the edge of the pit, Bush reelection would be a a great jump ahead.

The problem with your Bush jokes is that the man who has been acting stupidly, and not in the interest of his own country over the past couple of years is Chirac. Bush seems to get what he wants, and it seems to work out OK. Chirac on the other hand has devalued his UN veto, marginalized French opinion, even in the EU, and completely read the post war situation in Iraq wrongly. You may not know this since your French press is so biased, but it is true, no matter what "Liberation" writes.

Being French means never being checked for scoliosis.

Your pedigree is showing. Responsible parents wouldn't let you use the internet unattended.

Boy it`s a good thing I don`t read gibberish, or I might have tried to read that cut and paste book someone tried to write.
I don`t really hate the Phrench, I don`t hate anyone. I do however have a big problem with the current prevailing social attitude of Phrance.
Phrance has the annoying habit of continuing their quest of Empire while at the same time doing everything in its limited power to belittle everyone else in an attempt to re-gain its former assumed glory.It`s not just the USA that has been insulted by Phrance recently and it`s beginning to show effects even in Phrance.
To paraphrase Bill Whittle, Phrance is like an old dried up, worn out whore who still thinks she is young, attractive, influential and desireable.
One of the key tools in diplomacy is a little thing called "tact". Phrance has not learned this vital art and is to feel the effects of it`s rude, arrogant and abusive policies.
America invented democracy in its current form.
It would be easier to teach your grandmother to suck eggs than it would be to teach us something we don`t already know about it.
The world has been changing for some time and other countries have been changing with it, other countries except Phrance, which still tries to use Nepoleanic policies in 21st century affairs.
You pissed off England,Spain,Germany,Italy,Poland and a host of other countries and it was totally un nescessary.
If Phrance doesn`t change its attitude and policies to fit the times it will wind up in the dustbin of history, a chapter in Poli-sci 101 on how not to conduct foriegn relations.

As hard as you commies try to silence this site by wasting its bandwidth, the ideas expressed here will not die. Freedom is the natural human condition.

brb,

you own an interpretation, that's all.

Chirac on the other hand has devalued his UN veto
Really ?He even didn't use it. Everybody know that the US wouldn't get the 9 necessary votes. You may not know this since your American press is so biased.

marginalized French opinion
Really ? villepin was applaused by more than 120 UN ambassadors of different countries. The anti-war position, leaded by France, was much more popular than the tiny group of warriors countries.

even in the EU
Really ? After the famous "they missed a good opportunity to shut up" Chirac adressed to eastern countries", they indeed shut up.

completely read the post war situation in Iraq wrongly
Really ? The quagmire was predicted longly in advance by France, the same as the necessity to build a international force under the UN direction. Now, US face the problems alone, sacrify his soldiers daily.
And you glorify still this Mr Bush ?
The future of Iraq is to recover sovereinty and then call for a UN stabilizing force. It is the correct reading. It is the France reading, and that will happen.

The facts completely destroy all your convictions, sorry.

"Really ?He even didn't use it."

What he has done is prove that when the chips are down, the veto means nothing.

"marginalized French opinion"

The Brits, the Poles, The Dutch, The Danes, The Italians, they all hold French foreign policy in the highest regard, I suppose.

"they indeed shut up"
Yeah, the Poles shut up, and sent troops.

"Britain and Spain had been secretly promoting the idea of making a declaration of solidarity with the US. It was to be published on January 30 as an open letter in The Wall Street Journal and a handful of national newspapers across Europe. It would make clear that the anti-war stance espoused by France and Germany did not represent the views of all Europe." Financial Times

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0527plot.htm

"The quagmire was predicted longly in advance by France"

What quagmire exactly? This one:

"If one only reads the headlines, one cannot understand how the American and British could have won." Speaking of the French Press

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200401%5CFOR20040116d.html

This is the press you trust so completely that it does not bother you that your govt will soon block access to sites like this?

http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/C1F6A082562EB682CC256E160006A48E?OpenDocument

I am sure that PaveFrance will qualify for being blocked based on "racist content". Then you can happily trust your govt for all of the news you get.

Marc Levis,
All 4 of your defensive rebuttals are wrong.

1.Phrances UN veto IS devalued.
The United States never even gave you a chance to use it.We went to those countries that were like minded with us, got a coalition together, and under UNSC 1441 did what had to be done in Iraq. If that isn`t a devaluation of you UN veto and a slap in the face to boot I don`t know what is.
2.Phrances opinion IS marginalised.Not only that, it was never really important to begin with.
Where is this wonderful popinjay Villepin (who is alegedly, a man) now? I understand that even now Phrance is looking for a scapegoat for their rude,arrogant and pontificating diplomatic behavior, and your wonderboy Villepin (IS he a man?) is the prime candidate.
3.Nobody missed an opportunity to shut up.
Italy told Phrance to shut up.
Poland did likewise and is also something of a thorn in your side by not caving in to Phrances demands in regards to the EU.
I believe that England and Spain have also told Phrance in no uncertain terms to shut up.
4.There is not now,nor ever was, a US quagmire in Iraq. Phrance will NEVER have ANY part of Iraq except under US terms.The same goes for the UN.
You really need to read something besides the Phrench Socialist newspapers.
Like I said in my above post.Phrance needs to join the rest of the world in a common goal instead of trying to get the world to join Phrance, otherwise you will become even less relavent then you are now, if that`s possible.

If that isn`t a devaluation of you UN veto and a slap in the face to boot I don`t know what is.
So, you don't know. If US wanted to hurt France , they would go further with the UN until the France vetoes the whole thing, and then would go to war . THIS would have been a HUGE devaluation. They dind't make it, because they knew that France wouldn't have to use it. Remember : US was unable to gather 9 votes. That is the truth.

France opinion is marginilized.
In the US , certainly. But after the opposition to the US at the UN council, the audience in the world is globally much larger then before.

There is not now,nor ever was, a US quagmire in Iraq.
2 dead soldiers daily is not enough ?
Despite a brillant and quick military victory, Iraq is now a quagmire for the US because:
- its soldiers are attacked and killed daily
- There's no way to escape this terible fate before monthes
- nobody come to help the US,or the help is not significant.

Phrance will NEVER have ANY part of Iraq except under US terms
Your sentence demonstrates the imperialistic mind that leaded the US into Iraq.

Marc, you`re obviously an idiot.

Marc:
The US went into Iraq the support of 45 nations, and some 30 nations have sent troops to fight alongside the US. Are you calling these nations “not significant”?

What it boils down to in the minds of those who say the US acted “unilaterally” is that the UN did not go along FINALLY, and that our two usual allies Germany and France were not with us.

However, does the US need UN acquiescence before we use our military to protect our country? Judging the corrupt, oppressive and sometimes murderous countries that opposed the US action, please, marc, do not suppose that the UN is a “moral guide” in the world.

Secondly, another interesting question is whether a country such as France, which had numerous contracts with the Saddam regime, should exercise a veto over anything the UN is attempting to do in that country.

Lastly, marc, you say “nobody come to help the US”. Well, at this point, I would say that “nobody come to help the PEOPLE OF IRAQ”. And the US was supposed to worry about not having the “votes” of these kinds of countries?

"Despite a brillant and quick military victory"

Honestly Marc, how was this 'brilliant and quick' victory described, as it happened, in your French press? The press that feeds you all of your opinions.

Honestly, It wasn't described like this.
Journalists were reporting US army progression, for sure, but they were "fascinated" by the small groups of Irakian resistant fighters, and even more by a possible future "crush" of the US Army inside the cities by the so strong "Iraqian Guards".

All this suspens was artificial, and sure they all lacked of Professionalism.

I think they wanted to say something more original thant what could be heared daily in the US headquarter in Qatar.
They didn't want to repeat only tha the US army was making daily huge progreess, because maybe they were afraid to participate to the US propaganda.
However , by this way, they got obstinated with every signal that could transform in a potential fail for the US.

The job they accomplished was not a journalist job.

FOr this subject, it means the Military operations, I watched CNN, and I think I got a better picture.

For me , French journalists that covered this war were ridiculous.

Is that Honest enough ?

So, Marc, has your trust in the French media been shaken enough to cast a wary eye on everything they tell you? Have you figured out that they have an agenda they want to sell to the French people? Are you now willing to be suspicious of what they tell you?

Well, about this agenda, we can't this time charge the journalists, because in fact as I understood, the French governement asked for a precise Agenda. So, the journalists only report this fact.

Then Marc, I rephrase my questions:

So, Marc, has your trust in the French government been shaken enough to cast a wary eye on everything they tell you? Have you figured out that they have an agenda they want to sell to the French people? Are you now willing to be suspicious of what they tell you?

Actually, the governement generally doesn't make a lot of declarations.
The interprations, comments made by journalists flood the newspapers, rather than official declarations.

About the various positions of my governements , I have no doubt that they are often, even almost always, guided by French own interets.
France , "country of the human rights" is for me as pathetic as the US, "country operating for democracy".
The French duplicity exists, as well as the american duplicity exists.
The US made this war for their own interests, not "to free Iraqian people". What a joke !

Last, about this agenda,I've read somewhere that the end Bremer's adminitration is planned for the end of June , by the American themselves.
So who is trying to sell an agenda? He is allready done, no ?

Marc,
I would say that you skillfully dogded the question posed to you, but you neither dodged skillfully nor successfully. I reiterate.

Using one, but not both of the words "oui" or "non," do you trust the motives of the French government?

First, we must asses what are the motives of the French government.

For me , The main motives of the French governement is to save the UN autorithy because in this Frame, and in this frame only, France has a power , thanks to its heavy diplomatic work, and its veto power.
That's why over and over, France comes back to the subject "United Nations", international legitimity,and so on.
Anotherm motivation was to avoid a war because France was fearing really a destabilization of this region with other dramatic consequences for everybody ,not only France. That was maybe a bad reading but before the war , we couldn't know, and many countries were also afraid of a deterioration of the situation there. Not only France.
That's the main points for me. All other presupposed motives are ridiculous( "France wants to oppose the US by principe" , "France wants to keep Saddam in place to go on its small business")

So to come back to your question, I will say Yes and No, sorry!

Yes, France told loudly something right about his intentions : To keep the UN as a regulation power, to prevent a war.

No, France forgot to admit that his behavior was guided by a desire to keep its international power thanks to the UN, and to keep its political influence in the arabic world .

French selfish interests against US selfish interests.

Thank you for your considered answer Marc.

So to come back to your question, I will say Yes and No, sorry!

Yes, France told loudly something right about his intentions : To keep the UN as a regulation power, to prevent a war.

But my dear Marc, what part of France's actions protected the authority of the UN? There were TWELVE "resolutions" made by the UNSC against the actions of Iraq - and France's actions in the UNSC undermined them all. When you pass a "resolution," you should be "resolute" in enforcing it. The UN (with France's help) showed the world that it wasn't really serious, because it passes resolutions but doesn't back them up. That makes them "suggestions," not "resolutions." When you make demands but impose no consequences for failure of compliance, they are empty words. This is why so many people refer to the UN as a "debating society."

The USA had 12 UNSC resolutions in hand of which Saddam Hussein was in breach of every single one. The USA enforced the provisions of those resolutions - against France's wishes. France voted for every single one of those resolutions, but when the chips were down, opposed the enforcement of them. So you see, it was not the USA that undermined the reputation of the UN, it was France.

Including resolutions authored by France.

Marc, that was a refreshingly candid response. Thank you indeed.

So mullah Omar, Chemical Ali, and Dominique de Villepin walk into a bar...

it was not the USA that undermined the reputation of the UN, it was France.
we can debate who is guilty, but never France went out of the scope of what UN allowed. The US did.
If you don't respect the rules of an organizasation , you weaken it.

Uh, MARC:

TWELVE - UNITED - NATIONS - SECURITY - COUNCIL - RESOLUTIONS.

TWELVE. 12. Douze.

The USA enforced the UNSC resolutions. France backed down from those TWELVE resolutions. Hello?! *knock knock* ANYBODY IN THERE?

12.

Actually, 17 including 1441 - though several of them were just to remind Saddam of previous resolutions, just in case he forgot.

My mistake. I guess I lost count. Thanks for the correction, Doug.

Marc: despite my miscount, my argument remains unshaken. Don't you see? All talk and no action is what makes an organization (or nation) irrelevant and ridiculous.

There were TWELVE "resolutions" made by the UNSC against the actions of Iraq - and France's actions in the UNSC undermined them all.
Prove it !
Every resolutions against Iraq was voted by France.
Sure, in the last debates, US wanted to enforce the resolutions, but the majority of the Internatinal community didn't want, France included.
So, speaking from the way that UN rules are working, France was always repsecting these rules. Not the US, becase the US decided to f** the UN and go to Iraq with an artificial coalition.

France didn't undermined any resolution however France undermined the US will to start a military action in Iraq.
In any case 12, or 25 resolutions, or any number is a key arguement for an action. How many resolution concern Israel? How many actions were started there? and How many US vetos ?

The UN is a place to debate,set up pressure means, to avoid wars. It is his global aim. So the US aim to start a war couldn't get the UN approval. Once again ,the HUGE majority of countries were against this war.
The US unilateral moves weaken the UN , and it 's not a good thing, because finally, the US now realize that they need it, because of its capacity to mobilize important peacekeeping forces.

Okay, let's just take the last resolution of the bunch. UNSC 1441. France voted oui. Am I correct? YES, I am correct. In fact it passed unanimously.

And, I don't know if you're aware of such things, but the 1991 war never ended. Are you surprised? Check it out. There was no armistice - just a cease-fire. Cease-fires are conditional. The conditions were laid out in the aforementioned resolutions that passed the UNSC. The conditions were not met by Iraq. The US did not need anything more to resume the fighting than for Iraq to violate the terms of the cease-fire. And they did. Repeatedly. For twelve years.

I have a good friend who is an F-16 pilot. He patrolled the northern no-fly zone for a month or so just about every year after 1991. He was fired on nearly every single time he went up in the air. That kind of stuff didn't make the news very often. Repeated Iraqi cease-fire violations.

The US did not start a war against Iraq in 2003. The war began in 1991 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and didn't end until 2003. Please try to grasp that.

Here's another brain-teaser for you. The Korean War resulted in the exact same situation. Whether you understand it or not, the United Nations is still at war with North Korea to this very day. There was a cease-fire negotiated at Panmunjom - but there was never an armistice. No new UNSC resolutions are required for war to resume in Korea. Notice I said "resume," and not "begin."

That kind of stuff didn't make the news very often. Repeated Iraqi cease-fire violations.
The US did not start a war against Iraq in 2003. The war began in 1991 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and didn't end until 2003. Please try to grasp that.
I don't really agree. I know that they were regularly ceased-fire violations, and also bombings from the US side. These actions are too small to tell that it wall still a war state.
It was , let's say, under control.

However, you are rigt to tell that Iraq violated the UNSC resolutions, even the ones that it fainted to accepts , for example UNSC 686.
The biggest violation is the obstruction towards the inspectors. Does it justify a war ?
It appears more and more that Saddam obtructed UN inpectors rather to "play" the fool with the UN, to annoy his ennemies, rather than hide WMD.
He didn't believe that the united Nations would act against him. He was right in one way, but he forgot that the United States could come alone.
I would say to sum up that he shooted a bullet in his foot playing with the UN and united States.

Second, I won't agree with your consideration with North-Korea. This war had an Armistice , signed in 1953, but only by one side however.
Further, the UN were at war with tNorth Korea, not the US. Even if most forces were from the US, the US were acting under the mandate of the UN.

Then, You suggest than an Amistice is a rule for the end of a war.
Between 2 countries, yes, but between UN and a country ?
There's nothing to negotiate with the UN, because it represents the international law. So, no mmoney to get, no territory to exchange.
After a war with the UN, the guilty country receive some resolutions indicating what he MUST do , and there's nothing he can negotiate or modify.
That's the way it should be.

I beg your pardon - apparently armistice can have different connotations. How about "peace treaty" instead?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2774931.stm

Please note the first sentence in that article above:

Fifty years on, the truce is still all that technically prevents North Korea and the US - along with its ally South Korea - resuming the war, as no peace treaty has ever been signed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/

and

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559607_2/Korean_War.html

With no peace treaty signed, the two Koreas remained technically still at war; only the armistice agreement and demilitarized zone kept a tenuous peace.

Marc, your concept of reality is poor. Cessation of hostilities does not end a war. The fact that you "don't really agree" has no bearing whatsoever on reality. And just because a cease fire lasts for 50 years doesn't mean the war ended. I told you it would be a brainteaser for you - and you still haven't figured it out yet. That's okay - keep trying!

And just because a cease fire lasts for 50 years doesn't mean the war ended.
So what is the reasonible lenght ? 100 years ? , never ?
In this last case, please consider that in the numerous war that happened in the world for centuries, you may still find , because certainly some armistices were not signed ,that Netherland are still at war with Spain, or China with Mongolia, or Lettonia with Teutonic Cavalry,or Scotland with Rome, or Aztecs with Mexico....

Good luck with this amazing reading of the world conflicts...

Look doofus - YOU and YOUR COUNTRY are the ones who keep harping about "INTERNATIONAL LAW."

Now when I explain the rules to you, you don't like them?

Is it an international law to sign an armistice after a war ?
I don't think so.... At best an international usage

However , if it would be a law, please notice that the US violate this law in the case of the Korean conflict ,for 50 years.

Marc, I've always thought you were just argumentative. Now I'm quite sure you're just rather dumb.

You say America started the war in Iraq, 2003. I say they continued the war begun in 1991, and cited several UNSC resolutions to prove it, and examples to show that the 1991 war did not end in 1991. I even gave you a precedent for this kind of situation - a perfect example that shows that even the UN recognizes that the war in Korea is still on.

But you'll believe what you want. In your own little world.

Beo, I understant you point. It's a technical view about armistice ,and so on.
But make a survey, who believes that the 2 Gulf war were in fact only one ?
Who believe that the Korean war is still on ?
You know ,I even think that the majority of people in this world doesn't know that it was a war in Korea one day.

I feel confident with the results of such survey.
My little world is very big , so.

We're not talking about public opinion though, are we? We're talking about the LEGITIMACY and LEGALITY of the US invasion of Iraq, circa 2003. You Frenchies are always waving "international law" and "United Nations" in our faces. Why don't you learn about the facts instead of taking a survey of ignorant people's opinions?

"And just because a cease fire lasts for 50 years doesn't mean the war ended."
Theorically this is true ,but technically it isn't.War in my mind means ppl cutting throats.
A treaty is only a piece of paper , it does'nt mention how long it lasts.
Should a "Hot war" have terminated the Cold War
the treaty would'nt have more value than the actual truce with Korea.

I feel like I have to keep repeating myself. We're not talking about the definition of what war means. We're talking (originally at least) about the "legality" of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. My argument is that the war in 1991 did not "legally" end in the UN Security Council, and therefore the US needed no new authorization or UNSC resolution to continue the war. This negates any accusations of America engaging in an "illigitimate" or "rogue" or "illegal" invasion of Iraq. The US had UN backing for the war. The authorization came in 1991. We're talking about legalism here. We're playing lawyer ball. Like it or not, it was a legal and legitimate invasion. Call it a new war if you want (and yes, in essense, it is) but as far as the vaunted European "international law" is concerned, it's the same one.

I gave the Korean War example as a precedent.

Everybody get it? Can anyone who actually read that and understood it still say that the 2003 invasion was illegitimate/illegal?

Let's say UN is police station , USA a policeman.
Let's say the relations with honest citizens be
a peace treaty , those with minor rogues a truce(controls but no shooting) and those with criminals a war state (shooting).
If a policeman hits a minor rogue , it will rouses
the chief since it this is not the house's policy.
The policeman could be evicted for instance for beating someone who was driving beyond the speed limit.

There have been several cease-fires and interventions which were legal because approved or were simply illegal(the polemic is older than one might believe).

However , i don't contest that the will to bring a democracy is praiseworthy .