OT: French Owned

[Art]

TDH, another reply....

"What part of "Full UN Security Council Support" aren't you understanding? Russia, France and Germany are super pissed. People in Britain's Parliment are resigning. Open your f#ckin' eyes. This is not going over really well globally, just as I feared. "

For the record, Blair received a 440 to 130 or so approval for his actions in this matter. So, people can resign all they want. How about you opening your eyes and recognizing that the vast majority of that nation's politicians stood WITH Blair. Why is the odd-ball reaction so moving to you? Why is France, Germany and Russia more impressive than the U.S., England and Spain? Why have you ignored the dozens of nations that are on board with us?

Your view IS nonsense. To suggest the U.S. should be governed by Kofi Annan and the U.N. is ridiculous and dangerous and frightening and, honestly, incredibly dimwitted. And this is EXACTLY what YOU are saying. You are saying the U.S. shouldn't decide what it does in the world. That's the absolute weakest point anyone can take against the actions we've taken to this point.

[Kilmer17]

It is Liberal Bullsh!t.

Do we have to have UNANIMOUS support of every country before we do anything to protect our country? What kind of warped logic is that?

If that's your only definition of success, then I would guess you think EVERY action taken worldwide has been a failure, because NONE of them have had complete and total UN approval.

[The Dark Horse]

The Democrats I voted for were the more moderate, southern type, concerning the more than 50% thing.

Clinton had a horrible record of foreign policy. I voted for the guy once and it had more to do with Dole than Clinton.

I guess if you frown on a guy like Carter and triumph a man like Bush, that's fine. You'd probably call Mickey Mouse a damn commie because he wore red overalls.

I'm sorry you don't agree we need to act with total and complete solidarity of the UN Security Council when we're taking out a foreign governement and installing another, probably forcefully.

I guess Daddy Bush isn't to blame for any of this, is he?

All we can do now is sit back and watch history unfold. I sincerely pray you are right, Art.

"Do we have to have UNANIMOUS support of every country before we do anything to protect our country?"

9 major countries. Not every country. Do we have the right to take out evry government we feel could possibly pose a threat to us?

[Art]

TDH,

They aren't nine major countries. They are five major countries and four rotational countries. And you STILL haven't answered the question. Should the U.S. have the approval of Mexico every time it ever feels there's a need to do something foreign policy wise? Yes, or no.

It's not about a disagreement here. It's about the fact that you want to subjugate our country to another. This is just crazy. It's baseless and groundless. You want to usurp the Constitution in favor of Camaroon?

As for Daddy Bush, no, he's not to blame in the slightest. He led the world in a coalition to remove an invader from another country. That was our mandate. That was what Congress authorized. That is what we did, rapidly and with limited lost life. The man did EXACTLY what we set out to do. Do I and others wish the country had the will to let us do more? Sure. But, that's not Bush's fault for doing what the country would allow. His son has the will of this nation behind him. If it's quick, it'll stay behind him.

THIS country is what matters. It's time you recognized our rights. It's time you agreed that WE also have a say. In fact, our say is all that matters for how WE act. I'm not ready to subjugate myself to the whims of any other nation. We have the authority and obligation to rule ourselves. I can't believe I'm hearing another American openly call for the end to the self-rule of the United States.

[Kilmer17]

9 major countries. Not every country

We have over 30 countries fully behind us and another 15-20 offering logisitc support. If Cameroon means more to you in the international realm than Spain.......

Do we have the right to take out evry government we feel could possibly pose a threat to us?

Yes, we do. Not "possibly", but "DOES" Our President has stated that this is the policy of our govt and he and future Presdinents should adhere to it.

[The Dark Horse]

"Should the U.S. have the approval of Mexico every time it ever feels there's a need to do something foreign policy wise?"

In regards to taking out another countries government, yes.

There are some things that are so serious, a vast consensus needs to be reached in order for it's approval. In my opinion, attacking a country to remove their government is one of these things that is that serious. Adding Amendments to our Constitution is another.

"It's about the fact that you want to subjugate our country to another."

How is pressuring the French to come aboard subjugating to France? I was not asking for subjugation. I was asking for us to sell France.

"THIS country is what matters. It's time you recognized our rights. It's time you agreed that WE also have a say."

To suggest I am less American or seperate than the rest of my fellow Americans because my opinion differs from yours is one of the most insulting things you could ever say to me. Maybe my fear is increased terrorism as a result of us bypassing the UN.

F#ck you, pal. Go ahead and remove my account.

[Art]

TDH,

You were asking for subjugation. You were saying that if we couldn't get France to sign on that we must not act because they didn't sign on. That means any time any pissant country says no to us, we have to stop acting. This can't possibly be the ideal form of governing a nation to you.

You are clearly saying if one nation can't be sold on something, then we must not act and that is subjugating the United States to another country. Further, why aren't you DEMANDING that the French sell us on their course of action? Why is it a one way street? How come we must sell them but you have no desire that they sell us?

Again, why is it you continue to call for a broad consensus before acting and yet you ignore the broad consensus we've built? How come you pay no attention to the eight leaders of European nations that sent a letter in support of us? That letter was followed by another 10 nations in Europe saying they support us. How come you aren't asking that the French be required to sell their point of view, but we must?

This is self-hating, liberal insanity.

You concluded with this, "To suggest I am less American or seperate than the rest of my fellow Americans because my opinion differs from yours is one of the most insulting things you could ever say to me. Maybe my fear is increased terrorism as a result of us bypassing the UN. F#ck you, pal. Go ahead and remove my account."

First, I wouldn't think of removing your account. I consider you a friend and brother in loving the Skins. Second, this, again, is NOT a difference of opinion. This is YOU saying if we can't get France to go along with us that we must let them dictate our foreign policy. This is you saying there is a United Nations Security Council branch of our government. There isn't. You ARE less American if you feel America should be ruled by the U.N. Period. If that's insulting, then consider what you are saying to me in this thread and either explain how I'm not catching your drift, or change your drift, because, you are coming off PRECISELY as a person who believes the U.S. shouldn't rule the foreign policy of the U.S. in favor of another nation and you have YET to mention once that the other nation hasn't sold us on their sense of purpose either.

If every time you and I come to disagree on something you feel you must leave, then I would recommend you limit your conversations to points that are less intense to your personally. I don't feel any personal anger toward you in this thread. I am confused and amazed by what is CLEARLY a call for the U.S. to be governed by whatever despot dictators rotate through the Security Council or whatever socialist France thinks is in our best interest. Until you can explain how that's not what you mean, then you should be insulted because you are worthy of insult.

You shouldn't leave though. I much prefer talking to you than most .

[NASMTrainer]

Ubisoft. NOOOOOOOOOO What will I do without my Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and so on. I'm sending them back as we speak.

[NASMTrainer]

Originally posted by NavyDave

You can find more at www.newsmax.com

So far Sam Adams, old english 800, popyes and KFC are ok so I'm good.

Actually KFC is owned by Pepsico and they refused to put the word God on the can because they didn't want to offend anybody. Pepsi is off my list as well. I guess offending the people that believe in God is ok.

[ChrisFul]

Well, all I know is I don't like the French, but I'll still buy Ubisoft games (ive been in Redstorm's pocket ever since Rainbow 6 on PC back in 97/98), my family owns Nissan cars, and I damn sure NOT gonna change because the idiot French gov't wants to be a bunch of pussies. I can make the distinction.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by ']['he ]|)ark ]|~[orse

How is pressuring the French to come aboard subjugating to France? I was not asking for subjugation. I was asking for us to sell France.

But, TDH, what if the French obstinately refused to listen to our sales pitch (which is exactly what they did)? It's pretty hard to sell somebody something when they slam the door in your face, no?

Originally posted by ']['he ]|)ark ]|~[orse

There are some things that are so serious [that] a vast [international] consensus needs to be reached in order for it's approval. In my opinion, attacking a country to remove their government is one of these things that is that serious. Adding Amendments to our Constitution is another.

TDH, are you saying that if America wanted to amend its own Constitution that it should seek out U.N. approval for that?!

Whether you realize it or not, TDH, these are the sentiments of an internationalist, which would clearly mark you as one, sir. You seem to feel that the will of the international community is more important than the will of your own countrymen. As a result, it's not surprising that you would praise someone like Jimmy Carter, who is a feckless internationalist if ever there was one. And while Carter has done some truly wonderful and commendable things through Habitat for Humanity, there can be no doubt that when it comes to standing up to the globe's despots, Carter has displayed about as much backbone as a Slinky descending a flight of stairs. In short, and to put it bluntly, Carter is a world-class wuss.

And, TDH, since you seem to have such a deep ardor for the United Nations, take a gander at the following excerpted post written by a one 1AFN1 over on the CPND board.

http://pub229.ezboard.com/fcpndhardcorefrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=122.topic&start=61&stop=71

Of all the things President George W. Bush will ever do in his life, putting the U.N. in its proper place will forever be among the greatest of all.

The U.N. was never created for world peace. At least, not peace as you and I would define it.

The U.N. was created for one exclusive purpose and one purpose only -- to unify the world under one government. Sounds good, except that one government happens to be communism.

Alger Hiss drafted the U.N. Charter. The Charter mirrors the constitution of the now former Soviet Union. Alger Hiss was an admitted communist.

Peace, according to the U.N., simply means that there is no resistance to the actions and will of the U.N. They have reserved the right to use force in order to enforce their brand of peace...

To date, there has never been a chief of the United Nations' Security Council who wasn't a communist. Not one.

When the U.N. was chartered and later ratified, every nation received one vote, except the Soviet Union. They got two votes. In spite of the alleged fall of communism (see: mainland China and its 1.3 billion people, as they continue under the largest and most brutal communist regime ever to exist), that extra vote remains in force.

The fact that the U.N. is on our soil is no coincidence, either. The Soviet Union insisted that the U.N. be on our soil. The United Nations' very presence on our soil has led to the identification and deportation of countless spies brought in under the guise of being diplomats and the protection afforded to diplomats. The U.S. has been unable to punish any diplomat caught spying because of diplomatic immunity. The offenders are simply sent home, only to be replaced by new spies.

The U.N. has as much to do with world peace as hot dogs have to do with warm puppies.

The United Nations' "peace-keeping" actions have resulted in some of the most horrific atrocities on record. For example, the people butchered in Katanga in the early 1960s by an enemy neighbor, which happened to be a member of the U.N. Children were dismembered while still alive and their torsos were used to play soccer by these "peace-keeping" troops, as the parents of these children were made to watch. There is footage of these atrocities.

After the United Nations' involvement, the last democracy in Africa was handed over to a communist dictator and is now known as the Congo...

TDH, simply because we disagree over this matter is no reason to get pissed and walk away forever. I've enjoyed reading your posts for quite some time now, and I would dislike it very much if you decided to leave in a huff like this. However, that's you call, TDH. You're certainly free to do as you wish.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Skin-N-NY

Actually KFC is owned by Pepsico and they refused to put the word God on the can because they didn't want to offend anybody. Pepsi is off my list as well. I guess offending the people that believe in God is ok.

I'm not sure, but I think Pepsi sold off its fast food branch (KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut) a few years ago. I could be worng on this, though. Why exactly would anyone put the word "God" on a soda can anyway? I'm not familiar with this issue.:read:

[Tarhog]

Skins-in-NY....actually, that whole pepsi/God thing was an internet rumor. See the attached link from Pepsi's website. They did something cool (made a post-9/11 patriotic can) and because they couldn't fit the whole freaking pledge on the can, someone wigged out and started this whole boycott Pepsi thing. Here's the truth...

http://pepsi.com/current/index.html

[Tarhog]

I suspect the French started all of this (psssst...Pepsi sucks...it doesn't taste that good and they're anti-religion, anti-american too....drink Evian..)

You can't get much more American than Pepsi (and no I don't work for them).

[NASMTrainer]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Skins-in-NY....actually, that whole pepsi/God thing was an internet rumor. See the attached link from Pepsi's website. They did something cool (made a post-9/11 patriotic can) and because they couldn't fit the whole freaking pledge on the can, someone wigged out and started this whole boycott Pepsi thing. Here's the truth...

http://pepsi.com/current/index.html

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. But now I'm really confused. I thought Dr. Pepper was it's own company. Where does Pepsi come into play? LOL

[NASMTrainer]

:laugh: And I don't even drink Pepsi to begin with. I think it taste flat and it's way sweeter than Coke. I did however work for Coke at 1 time.

[Tarhog]

Don't feel too bad...we've all gotten bitten at one time or another (in fact, the female Marine letter where she tells off the french soldier that they are talking about in another thread is also a hoax - the Marine Corps states there is no such person - but it makes a good story).