Our European Allies

[Johnney]

Hey--giving is religious dogma!!!!!! it should be illegal !!!!

yes it should be, we need to look in our own backyard first

 

[no1tovote4]

Hey--giving is religious dogma!!!!!! it should be illegal !!!!

:rotflmao:

That's twice today old man!

:cof:

You need to come here and clean the coffee from my screen!

J/K. I would rep you for the good laugh, but I need to spread it around more.

 

[no1tovote4]

as usual. but why is tis an issue? we al know whose going to step up to the plate when the time(s) come. whether were expected to or its our "duty" is another story. we do it because of who we are. were a giving nation.

It became an idiotic pissing contest. Who can give more. My point was we were arguing about a moot point to begin with, there was little doubt the US would give more than any other nation in order to help in that region.

 

[Johnney]

It became an idiotic pissing contest. Who can give more. My point was we were arguing about a moot point to begin with, there was little doubt the US would give more than any other nation in order to help in that region.

it should have never come up about us being stingy in the first place. whose got the deepest pockets... we already know, and retard had no business making that statement.

 

[j07950]

It is not easy debating Padisha because he simply re-writes history to support his arguments. The following is an example of Padisha re-written history:

Your statement is untrue. The only on-the-ground military support the US received during the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent destruction of the Taliban government was from the UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. The French did not lift a finger to help America fight the Taliban on-the-ground during the invasion of Afghanistan. I am sure you realize this. So please stop re-writing history to support your disingenuous arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

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

Sorry about getting involved:
Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002, by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. France was indeed the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan, in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan by the French Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft, the C135 tankers, the C160 and C130 transports, the E2C and the Super Etendard from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Mirage 2000D strike aircraft. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Talibans in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.

Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Currently, 540 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.

With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They currently amount to 1,820 with the arrival of the EUROCORPS in Kabul during the summer.

http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/forces_francaises.htm

 

[j07950]

And that still makes it less for all of Europe than the US (35 million plus the help I outlined) alone. That is how many countries? Definitely more than 1.

This doesn't even count the personal donations that will come from our country. Attempting to sit a high horse and say WE can give more when YOU are clearly unwilling to give more and we already are is simply disingenuous and hypocritical.

Now if somebody from Australia were to talk to us about our commitment there it would mean something. Per capita they have promised more than any other country. However attempting to compare the EU (which is comprised of how many countries?) to the US which is one country and then to STILL COME UP SHORT tells me that we have a little more committed than do you.

Give up, you offer a piddling little amount and attempt to make us take up the slack. By the time we are done you shouldn't be surprised to find that 40-60% of the money that goes there comes from our country alone. Not for Governmental money but donations and all involved.

To say we aren't giving enough is simply a disgusting judgement from somebody in your position.

I for myself ain't saying you're not doing enough...
But don't say anything about france being selfish and bringing out ridiculous figures.
The french government is top among G7 in contributing part of it's budget to foreign development, reconstruction etc... with 0,42%. Thats more than the US, but who cares really...
The french government has vowed to hand out 45 million euros which is about 58.5 million dollars. Public donations are increasing everyday in france and is more than 18 million dollars right now ans counting.
As a whole the EU is handing out 567 M USD so the US isn't the main contributer, than again who cares. Is this the most important? Who wins in handing out money to Asia, what a stupid debates.

 

[5stringJeff]

Sorry about getting involved:
Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002, by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. France was indeed the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan, in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan by the French Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft, the C135 tankers, the C160 and C130 transports, the E2C and the Super Etendard from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Mirage 2000D strike aircraft. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Talibans in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.

Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Currently, 540 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.

With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They currently amount to 1,820 with the arrival of the EUROCORPS in Kabul during the summer.

http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/forces_francaises.htm

And yet, PE tries to claim that France won the 1991 Gulf War! :rotflmao:

 

[j07950]

And yet, PE tries to claim that France won the 1991 Gulf War! :rotflmao:

Did he?
Well maybee you miss understood him, I hope so...

 

[padisha emperor]

gop jeff, thank you for your contribution.

j07950 only answered to onedomino to show the french operation in Afghanistan.
Does he said that the french were the first and the mightiest on the ground ? No. So, what the matter ?

For the competition about "who give more money", sure it is stupid. The most important is that all this money would be in a great quantity, and above all that the States keep their promises of money : for the Bam's earthquake, in Iran, I believe that in fact less than 10% of the money promised for the help was given. (Heard it on a television programm, so, it is not necessary a primary and sure information source, but I think that it could be really possible)
I hope, that here, it wouldn't be like that, and that ALL the money promised will be given.

 

[onedomino]

Sorry about getting involved:
French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.

You should be. The fact remains true that the French did not lift a finger to aid the Americans on the ground during the invasion of Afghanistan. The stuff you posted has no bearing on the ground war which began on October 7th and was over before mid-December. American and Northern Alliance forces destroyed the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif on November 10th. Your post points out that a company of French soldiers showed up in Mazar-i-Sharif on December 2nd. So what? Kabul fell on November 12th, Konduz on November 25th, and Kahdahar on December 7th. French forces did not fight on the ground with the forces from America, UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. Regarding the 200 French forces today? Well, that huge contingent is 200 more than absolute zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Military_operations

---

 

[j07950]

You should be. The fact remains true that the French did not lift a finger to aid the Americans on the ground during the invasion of Afghanistan. The stuff you posted has no bearing on the ground war which began on October 7th and was over before mid-December. American and Northern Alliance forces destroyed the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif on November 10th. Your post points out that a company of French soldiers showed up in Mazar-i-Sharif on December 2nd. So what? Kabul fell on November 12th, Konduz on November 25th, and Kahdahar on December 7th. French forces did not fight on the ground with the forces from America, UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. Regarding the 200 French forces today? Well, that huge contingent is 200 more than absolute zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Military_operations

---

You're just out to get people wrong, you probably spend your day on here doing so...do you even work?
as for the 200 or so troop it's more like: Almost 8,400 soldiers are now deployed under the force’s command in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile a US-led military coalition of over 18,000 troops including French special forces is battling Taliban-led militants in the south and southeast of Afghanistan.

And maybee we didn't have troops on the ground from day one but we were still very much involved.
And it's funny because in this article ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/16/ret.france.force/) it says that a lot of other nations like italy and canada and germany also hadn't sent troops to begin with...isn't that funny, why boast france for not doing so?
Maybee the US and UK didn't need help immediatly and didn't ask for it...Isn't that a possibility?

 

[j07950]

I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a single article stating that France refused to help in Afghanistan when the US first invaded. I think it's because the US didn't ask for help, and didn't need it. Especially knowing the french airforce was helping out since day one and that some of the most important missions were air campaigns.
Stop trying to look for guilty people. Who cares who helped and who didn't, France never refused to help, and they still are very very active there.
Go get a job and if you've actually got one, do some work, you don't get paid to post offensive posts on the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1703807.stm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n23.shtml

 

[dilloduck]

I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a single article stating that France refused to help in Afghanistan when the US first invaded. I think it's because the US didn't ask for help, and didn't need it. Especially knowing the french airforce was helping out since day one and that some of the most important missions were air campaigns.
Stop trying to look for guilty people. Who cares who helped and who didn't, France never refused to help, and they still are very very active there.
Go get a job and if you've actually got one, do some work, you don't get paid to post offensive posts on the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1703807.stm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n23.shtml

I would suggest you be a little careful about pissing peope off around here--re-read the rules.

 

[j07950]

Probably due to the fact that France has been an outspoken opponent against the US, the fact that they have been doing the world dirty through the oil for food scandal!

Don't make me laugh!!!
Please name all the other countries who are also involved, don't limit yourself to France, even if you obviously have something against it. Tons of other countries were involved...
http://johnkerryquestionfairy.blogspot.com/2004/10/newsweek-democrat-donor-received-22.html

 

[j07950]

I would suggest you be a little careful about pissing peope off around here--re-read the rules.

Why because you say stupid things and have no proof to back it up? The guy says france didn't back up US in Afghanistan...where is the proof? I haven't found any and wouldn't mind being showed some.
Please enlighten me!!!

 

[j07950]

Very true, but none agreed to use there veto power to block actions against Iraq! That does indeed make me laugh!!

Who gives a shit about Irak...90% of the world was aginst it...give me a break...stop whining about it...if you can't finish a war you started then you shouldn't have gone into it. How can you expect other nations to go into war with you when its based on lies (even if there are other motives which are good one but in the end which no one knows about)? No one is suicidal enough to follow the US whenever it decides to. Stop crying about it and looking for enemies.

 

[j07950]

Oh and by the way...no ones had the balls enough to use their veto except for france and russia...even if they somehow has ties in irak and interests, so did other nations.

 

[j07950]

First it's Iraq, not Irak you illiterate bastard! Based on lies eh, care to speak of those lies? what a frog!

In french it's Irak, if you are more literate than please write your next posts in French if you think I'm such a bastard...Let me guess, you probably did some in high school but forgot, right???
Give me a break.

 

[j07950]

I only put the top 10 as this would be too long...
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

Top 30 Bush - Iraq Lies: A Reference For Seekers of Truth

So many lies have been spread by the Administration and their minions that it is hard to keep track. I suppose that’s part of their strategy. Overwhelm the opposition and the public with so much misinformation that the truth will never be clear. They can then press forward in an ambiguous cloud of fear and “what if?” scenarios. Thus, we should take pains to document the trail of deceit. As our part, we have created this list, sort of a handy tip-sheet to refute the arguments of the tin-pot, would-be murderers who insist on seizing Iraqi oil in exchange for the blood of our military men and women and the Iraqi citizenry..

So here we go.

1) It is only appropriate that we start the list with the most recent fabrication:

“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.”

“Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.”

And the Administration’s response?

"’We fell for it,’ said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."

Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication.

Anyway, in no particular order, here are the other top lies currently being circulated by the Administration and the right-wing propaganda machine.

2) The Bush Administration insists Iraq is developing an 800-mile-plus range missile. A prior UN resolution made it illegal for Iraq to build missiles that had a range in excess of 93 miles.

In fact, The al-Samoud 2, the missile to which the administration refers, has indeed been flying too far in tests… …by about 15 miles and that is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system.

3) The administration claimed they had satellite photographs that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing".

4) The administration asserted that specific presidential palaces were places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing".

5) It was reported that an al Qaeda informant claimed that terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through airports without being detected.

Unfortunately, the “informant” then failed a polygraph test.

"'This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,' Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the news network."

Even so, the “Orange” alert status, which was activated when the Administration made these claims public, remained. But wait, if the reason for the heightened alert status was proven false, then why keep it? Good Question. Let’s see…if I were Bush and I wanted to paralyze the populace with fear in order to force them behind me in all my criminal dealings, I would certainly take advantage of this miscue by allowing the alert to remain. Nothing like a little orange to make people see red. Besides, how many people could have possibly even heard about the whole “Hoax” thing?

True to form, Tom Ridge made no mention of the “Hoax” to anyone so why should Bush.

"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time."

6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

"Saddam Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim [that] there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war. [The bodyguard] has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited."

They include:

~ An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

~ A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

~ Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

And…

"William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is 'the smoking gun'."

Needless to say, all of these have proven to be 100% false.

7) As a centerpiece to it's argument for invading Iraq, the Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree:

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October:

"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on Iraq."

In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed that:

“ …he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech.”

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government:

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"

She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability.

8) Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report. To this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

9) The Administration latched onto the idea that Ramzi Yousef, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. The reasoning for this speculation is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

10) Bush and Co. claimed that al-Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. Some of this relates to a group called Ansar al, which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh and by the way...no ones had the balls enough to use their veto except for france and russia...even if they somehow has ties in irak and interests, so did other nations.

The balls???----You mean the needed the money and to hell with the Iraqi people.