PDA

View Full Version : So where's that glorified, exalted Geneva Convention now?


Dupre
8th Mar 2002, 08:50 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/06/ret.afghan.helicopter.horror/index.html

"Officials had said Tuesday that U.S. commanders watched in agony as images were beamed back from a reconnaissance plane of Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Neil C. Roberts, 32, being captured and executed."

So, where's the freakin' Geneva Convention all you Europeans chant 'rah, rah'? Where is that holy grail of humanity you claim now?? Pfft. Trying to lecture us Americans on humanity.. :mad:

vedder
8th Mar 2002, 09:12 PM
:mad:

BlAcK_PlAgUe22
8th Mar 2002, 09:27 PM
Sad. :( :mad:

NTKB
8th Mar 2002, 09:43 PM
**** em all. Kill all Qaeda and Towelbans in sight. Just like in Vietnam. We took prosoners till they started executing ours. Now its on.

Snake13
8th Mar 2002, 10:12 PM
cept Vietnam didn't end well.... we defintly don't want another Vietnam

Goat Fucker
8th Mar 2002, 10:34 PM
Al-Queda has never gone to war because someone else broke the Geneva convention, the US has, noone has ever desputed that any soldier captured by thease guys would be in deep s<b></b>hit, the russians figured that out first hand, no need to tell me twice, what we have been saying is that, hey, if you cant handle it when things get a little rough, then what where you doing preaching about how things where happening in Bosnia and the like? who the hell died and made Bush God? if youre going to strike down on others for breaking the rules, be damned sure you dont do it youreself.

And for youre information, Denmark woke up to the news of its own troops coming home in bags today, yet my mind is unchanged, and if DK decided to jump the gun and go against the Geneva convention because of that, i will be the first to tell you that our Government needs their heads cut off and put on poles as a warning for future generations.

You lost a man today, what did we loose yesterday, what was it? 6? 8? i lost count, its not our war, yet there they where helping you out.

Calm the f<b></b>uck down mate, and just be happy that you still have alies, or you wont for much longer, last i heard European casualties have been heavy enough uptill now.

NTKB
8th Mar 2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Goat ****er
Al-Queda has never gone to war because someone else broke the Geneva convention, the US has, noone has ever desputed that any soldier captured by thease guys would be in deep s<b></b>hit, the russians figured that out first hand, no need to tell me twice, what we have been saying is that, hey, if you cant handle it when things get a little rough, then what where you doing preaching about how things where happening in Bosnia and the like? who the hell died and made Bush God? if youre going to strike down on others for breaking the rules, be damned sure you dont do it youreself.

And for youre information, Denmark woke up to the news of its own troops coming home in bags today, yet my mind is unchanged, and if DK decided to jump the gun and go against the Geneva convention because of that, i will be the first to tell you that our Government needs their heads cut off and put on poles as a warning for future generations.

You lost a man today, what did we loose yesterday, what was it? 6? 8? i lost count, its not our war, yet there they where helping you out.

Calm the f<b></b>uck down mate, and just be happy that you still have alies, or you wont for much longer, last i heard European casualties have been heavy enough uptill now.

**** the Geneva convention. Its obsolete and needs to be done away with. It should only apply to civilized conflicts since barbarians like the towelban and alAssholes wont follow it anyway. I say cap em as you find em.

OICW
9th Mar 2002, 12:02 AM
I won't make any comments on how happened in Afghanistan but the Geneva Convention really is messed up.

Take what happened in Vietnam with the VC "spy" who was executed. World condemnation yet the Geneva Convention states that if you're tried as a spy and found guilty, you can be executed.

Plus the statement about "excessively injurious rounds" i.e hollowpoint rounds is bullsh<I></I>it. HPs are designed to do more damage by expanding IIRC and are intended for unarmoured targets.

But if you get hit by a FMJ (depending on placement) you still are probably going to be fairly badly injured by it.

BlAcK_PlAgUe22
9th Mar 2002, 12:17 AM
So basically the Geneva convention outlines the rules of war?

FiringAimlessly
9th Mar 2002, 12:24 AM
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

GenoOfTheCrayon
9th Mar 2002, 12:28 AM
Now, the entire fact that they tried to apply rules to war just makes me sick. Here these guys are, butchering eachother, when suddenly a guy comes in and says "don't use that gun, it's exesively injurious!" and pretty soon you get 200 wars all because ONE guy used an HP round. They said that you shouldn't use lasers because they can blind people. What about the guns today? They can make people deaf!

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by {GD}NTKB
**** the Geneva convention. Its obsolete and needs to be done away with. It should only apply to civilized conflicts since barbarians like the towelban and alAssholes wont follow it anyway. I say cap em as you find em.
Damn right. Those rules are only for white people. If we're fighting ******* or ragheads, who gives a fu<i></i>ck? Kill em all I say.




:rolleyes:

GenoOfTheCrayon
9th Mar 2002, 01:00 AM
If we're fighting *******

*hides under his trashcan before Aeris arrives*

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Genocide3K
*hides under his trashcan before Aeris arrives*
I'm sure he'll understand the point I'm trying to make. The only racism here is coming from {GD}NTKB.

FiringAimlessly
9th Mar 2002, 01:06 AM
Remember it's that kind of attitude that got Webern shot dead.

smithnwessun
9th Mar 2002, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by {GD}NTKB


**** the Geneva convention. Its obsolete and needs to be done away with. It should only apply to civilized conflicts since barbarians like the towelban and alAssholes wont follow it anyway. I say cap em as you find em.

i wonder who is civilized...the one that kill uncivilized people maybe ...for vengence ? well if that is civilized i will go kill everyone that do bad thing to me...who care im civilized !!!

das_ben
9th Mar 2002, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by {GD}NTKB
**** the Geneva convention. Its obsolete and needs to be done away with. It should only apply to civilized conflicts since barbarians like the towelban and alAssholes wont follow it anyway. I say cap em as you find em.

all hail the civilized world, eh?
you disgust me

Sweep
9th Mar 2002, 01:10 AM
Interesting that you associate blacks immediately with honorless, ruleless barbarians. hmmm, way to go Mr Enlightened...

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Sweep
Interesting that you associate blacks immediately with honorless, ruleless barbarians. hmmm, way to go Mr Enlightened...
Yeah. Whats even more interesting is that I don't actually believe that. (For all the dumbasses out there, I was making a point.) But you really do believe that they are honourless, ruleless barbarians. So what is your point?

Sweep
9th Mar 2002, 01:18 AM
No, I believe the Taliban and AlQueda or however you spell it are honorless as far as their fighting and methods are concerned, and they show it in every single damn thing they do. So a few people point that out. Then you run in here and spew some **** about ******* for crying out loud. You're the one spewing the racism. You're the one making connections between barbarians and blacks, no one else said crap about any minority.

I say if the enemy refuses to abide by the Geneva Convention we shouldn't be bound by it when dealing with them either. But I already know we'll be taking the moral high ground so whatever...

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Sweep
No, I believe the Taliban and AlQueda or however you spell it are honorless as far as their fighting and methods are concerned, and they show it in every single damn thing they do. So a few people point that out. Then you run in here and spew some **** about ******* for crying out loud. You're the one spewing the racism. You're the one making connections between barbarians and blacks, no one else said crap about any minority.

Barbarians? There you go spouting racism and bigotry again. Like I said, the difference between you and me is that you serious, I'm not. I was not making any connection between blacks and the Afghans. I was just using both of them as an example.

jaunty
9th Mar 2002, 01:36 AM
Plus the statement about "excessively injurious rounds" i.e hollowpoint rounds is bull****. HPs are designed to do more damage by expanding IIRC and are intended for unarmoured targets.

The Convention is against JHP rounds because they have the potential to cause massive damage without actually killing the victim. Granted, so do FMJ's, but nowhere near as much.

Eg. If a FMJ strikes you in the chest, there's a good chance it'll go straight through you (unless it's a weak caliber, or strikes bone). If a JHP strikes you in the chest, it'll deform and stay in you, sitting in whatever organ it hits.

Take what happened in Vietnam with the VC "spy" who was executed. World condemnation yet the Geneva Convention states that if you're tried as a spy and found guilty, you can be executed.

I'm not quite sure which incident you're referring to, but if it's the one where the Police Cheif of Hue city executed a VC regular in the streets of Hue after the fighting was over, then you're wrong. He wasn't found to be a spy, and he wasn't accused of it. He was only accused of being a VC. That's why everyone condemed Nguyen Whatever-His-Last-Name-Was for shooting him. Because he was a soldier who'd been captured, not a spy.

**** the Geneva convention. Its obsolete and needs to be done away with. It should only apply to civilized conflicts since barbarians like the towelban and alAssholes wont follow it anyway. I say cap em as you find em

If an "a<u></u>sshole" country is defined by one who doesn't follow the Geneva convention, that makes the US Army an uncivilized a<u></u>sshole country, since they've made almost no effort to follow it since the day it was drafted.

Napalm is more or less outlawed as an anti-personell weapon, but I think you've all seen the picture ofthe young Vietnamese girl bawling her eyes out running down the road because Uncle Sam just introduced her to Air Mail.

On a side note, NKTB, are you in any way affiliated with the Republican Party, KKK or any other groups that are so far right-wing they're almost left?

Sweep
9th Mar 2002, 01:40 AM
Barbarians? There you go spouting racism and bigotry again. Like I said, the difference between you and me is that you serious, I'm not. I was not making any connection between blacks and the Afghans. I was just using both of them as an example.

Yeah, which is what I said was interesting. No one here made this connection other than you. Guy says something about the Taliban and AlQueda being barbarians (without so much as a mention of race) and you jump in with comments about whites and "*******". Trying to turn it into some racial crap... For the record I don't believe or think it about blacks either...

I still find it interesting that you immediately associate the two together. Maybe you should have a look at your own racist tendencies before you jump into a previously perfectly rational discussion that didn't involve race one bit...

LifesBane[4C]
9th Mar 2002, 01:59 AM
Sweep, no offense, but you're being kind of dense.

I see exactly what point he was making...and that point did not in any way reflect his oppinion. Did your eyes conveniently skip over the :rolleyes: too? Or are you just trying to be a moronic asshole?

Sweep
9th Mar 2002, 02:03 AM
Like I said, I just find it interesting that in a big anti racism speech/point he was making, he was the only one bringing race into this whole discussion. All the while calling everyone else a racist while no other mention was made. lol... Maybe it's just me who sees the irony in that.

OICW
9th Mar 2002, 02:07 AM
Jaunty- yep that's the one.

I am somewhat unclear on it but I have seen in my textbook a picture of that execution by a .38 Special and the accused was wearing civilian clothes.

AFAIK, the Geneva Convention states that if you are a soldier and found to be behind enemy lines (gee, that was really helpful in Vietnam), wearing civilian clothes then you can be tried as a spy and if guilty shot.

If the guy wasn't even a VC (once again unclear) then well, poor bastard.

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Sweep
Like I said, I just find it interesting that in a big anti race speech/point he was making, he was the only one bringing race into this whole discussion, lol...
Jesus Christ. You brought race into this. I'll outline the connection I made between blacks and Afghan/Muslim/AL Quaeda/Taliban.

a) Blacks historically were subject to a lot of hatred in the US, and there are still remnants of this.
b) As a result of the 9/11 attacks, Muslims are being subjected to the same hatred (though thankfully not as much or as intense) that blacks once were, whether they live in the US or not.
c) I then made a highly sarcastic comment connecting these two instances, in order to show that {GD}NKTB's remark was bigot/racist/intolerant.

See the fu<i></i>cking connection? Or are you dense, like Lifesbane said? The :rolleyes: and the evident sarcasm are enough to show I'm not racist. You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand.

Sweep
9th Mar 2002, 02:14 AM
LOL, I must be crazy then. This topic had nothing to do with race until you brought it up, simple fact. And yeah, I see the connection. And I also see you as being the one jumping up and making it immediately. Making it about race when it wasn't before, this post that is... Not like I care really, simply thought it was ironic, must be crazy me.

Obvioulsy anything we do against terrorists is simply our racist slave master nature coming out for all to see. Silly me.

St0rmcaller
9th Mar 2002, 02:20 AM
NT, it's absolutely amazing at how you can truly, and utterly, disgust me.

In case you don't know, I've lost 8 firends so far since Sept 11th. Now, let me ask you, what gives you the right to declare murder an option? How do you think I feel, being so personally involved? Homicide is bad enough, but the world is ****, and dumb ass people exist, and sometimes, war is the only option.

Yeah, that's right, **** the world, kill em all. And then what could we say when every nation on the planet turns against us.

Oh, and as usual, the rest of this thread pretty much disgusts me as well.

--Out

LifesBane[4C]
9th Mar 2002, 02:21 AM
*sigh* I guess this is called for once again.

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 02:52 AM
OK WTF did I do? Becuase I said we shouldnt follow the rules with ppl who are obviously not going to follow them themselves? And who the hell are you to twist my words around to say I am racist? I am the farthest from racist. I said if some smhucks want to break the rules of war (which is never right) then why give them an advantage? Dont put words in my mouth.

Stormcaller wtf are you talkin about? How did I say murder is an option? We are at war now and there are soldiers fighting. If they are not going to take prisoners why should we? WTF is that crap? Goddamn it its impossible to ****ing even state a point of view for debate in these forums without getting flamed or called disgusting, an *******, or some other form of slander.

No matter what anyone says there will always be someone with a counter point so I am not even going to try and flame this on anymore. If I offended anyone im sorry. But damn stormcaller for you to say that **** it hurts man. Ive always looked up to you dude...

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by jaunty

On a side note, NKTB, are you in any way affiliated with the Republican Party, KKK or any other groups that are so far right-wing they're almost left?

KKK!? This is ridiculous! WTF!? I didnt say Arabs, I didnt say MUSLIMS I SAID AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN. I dont give a **** if they are compromised of ****ing russians! They attacked us for good or bad and therefore they must be demolished since there is no negotiation with ppl like that. As for what I am yes I am more to the right than left. Personally non-traditional values and abortion and many other left wing issues disgust me. Dont worry god forbid i should offend anyone else. Its not like you and ****ing RogueLeader dont do enough insulting and flame inducing. Wouldnt want to take that away from you.

Kuroshio Apocal
9th Mar 2002, 03:03 AM
^ ... and this little piggy is heading for a stroke.

With possible heart attack/massive coronary along the way.

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 03:06 AM
sigh... you know ive tried many times to reason with you ppl on these forums... I truely think some of you are from other planets... I dont understand, I lived in a foreign country for 2 years and live in many parts of the US for a time... yet ive never met such stiff necked ppl as in these forums. Maybe its the way I word my paragraphs that it is not the same as talking in RL. Maybe you cant hear the tone I am trying to convey. Either way I see some ppl post crap that is OUTRAGEOUS and yet no one even whimpers... I dont get it...

jaunty
9th Mar 2002, 03:07 AM
First of all, the Taliban NEVER attacked anyone outside Afghanistan, so the US has no right whatsoever to declare war on them, regardless of how they treat their people.

I don't induce flames. I argue a point with everything I've got. And that usually involves pointing out idiocy, fascism, or f<u></u>uckheads. (Like now)

As for my KKK comment, the KKK aren't purely an anti-sematic group (Only about 98%). The rest of their agenda (The other 2%) is generally geared towards hating anything that isn't a white christian from the US, which your calling people barbarians reminded me of.

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 03:14 AM
You really do bore me sometimes jaunty. I dont get how you try to come off so high and mighty. You and the rest of the commy wackos in these forums.

First of all, the Taliban NEVER attacked anyone outside Afghanistan, so the US has no right whatsoever to declare war on them, regardless of how they treat their people.

They were an oppresive regime that squandered the rights of innocent woman. We should have smashed them long ago. Either way by harboring an organization that did do the attacks and refusing to hand them over it left little other choice. What are we going to do put sanctions on them?

I don't induce flames. I argue a point with everything I've got. And that usually involves pointing out idiocy, fascism, or ****heads. (Like now)

I wont even respond to that childish comment. Learn how to convey your disdain for others in a mature manner.

As for my KKK comment, the KKK aren't purely an anti-sematic group (Only about 98%). The rest of their agenda (The other 2%) is generally geared towards hating anything that isn't a white christian from the US, which your calling people barbarians reminded me of.

Barbarian \Bar*ba"ri*an\, n. [See Barbarous.]
1. A foreigner. [Historical]

Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I
shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he
that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. --? Cor.
xiv. 11.

2. A man in a rule, savage, or uncivilized state.

3. A person destitute of culture. --M. Arnold.

4. A cruel, savage, brutal man; one destitute of pity or
humanity. ``Thou fell barbarian.'' --Philips.

I think that the dictionarys definition of Barbarians suits them perfectly. Learn english before accusing someone of being in the KKK. Obviously definition 3 doesnt apply, since they have a marvelous culture in Afghanistan.

jaunty
9th Mar 2002, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by {GD}NTKB
sigh... you know ive tried many times to reason with you ppl on these forums... I truely think some of you are from other planets... I dont understand, I lived in a foreign country for 2 years and live in many parts of the US for a time... yet ive never met such stiff necked ppl as in these forums. Maybe its the way I word my paragraphs that it is not the same as talking in RL. Maybe you cant hear the tone I am trying to convey. Either way I see some ppl post crap that is OUTRAGEOUS and yet no one even whimpers... I dont get it...

Or maybe you just watch Fox News too much :)

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 03:17 AM
Fox news is a decent source if you can filter the inane parts.

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 03:23 AM
Ok I just know you are going to reply to my post but i gotta hit the sack. I dont know what time it is in Australia but its late as hell here. Im out. I feel like crap now since I offended Stormcaller so much that he would call me disguting.. sigh. Ill read your remarkable remarks tomorrow. ;)

jaunty
9th Mar 2002, 04:24 AM
Learn how to convey your disdain for others in a mature manner.

Hypocrite.

They were an oppresive regime that squandered the rights of innocent woman. We should have smashed them long ago. Either way by harboring an organization that did do the attacks and refusing to hand them over it left little other choice. What are we going to do put sanctions on them?

If Canada passed a law saying women couldn't go to school, would the US attack them? No. Lets see how long it takes for that oil pipeline to be built in Afghanistan, then we'll see the true motivations bhind the US attacks.

Here's a scenario for you. A man living in Australia hijacks a plane, and flies it into the Whit House. The man did it on behalf of a terrorist group based in the UK. So what do you do? Bomb the Australia and the UK, just the UK, or just Australia? You wouldn't do any of them, there's no reason to do it, because there's nothing to gain.

The US govt would never invest this much money in a war without having a massive amount to gain. The Taliban are just an excuse to rape yet another country.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 04:49 AM
beware jaunty the war is not over ;)
USA still have a long list of countries supporting terrorists :
IRAN
IRAQ
SOUDAN?
...
and remember the guys in the planes, some of them were french, other english and so on ... maybe there was a australian too :D

The_Fur
9th Mar 2002, 04:56 AM
They were an oppresive regime that squandered the rights of innocent woman. We should have smashed them long ago. Either way by harboring an organization that did do the attacks and refusing to hand them over it left little other choice. What are we going to do put sanctions on them?

Odd isn't it? that is exactly what the Iranians think of us, i guess we should all kill ourselves now. Cultural difference is not a valid reason for anything. It's however frequently used as an excuse because certain people are easilly manipulated (as our dear friend mr Goebles showed in ww2).

BTW if you have noticed any footage coming from afghanistan oday, most women still wear burkhas... i guess you showed those woman hating evil commie fascist terrorists.

Nightmare
9th Mar 2002, 05:18 AM
Well, one thing is certain. It`s a good thing the US finally goes
about cleaning up the mess they helped create and finance.
ie, the Taliban regime.

Here`s a list of dictators the US government has aided, by
putting them in power or giving them trade concessions,
military aid or financial support.
All too often it seems US foreign policy is decided in the
board room of a multi-billion dollar company. The other
reason, during the Cold War, was communist hunting.
Note that some of these men were active in the beginning
of the 20th century. Some others are out of the game by
now, some like Noriega actually arrested by US troops!
YAY! Way to go!

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

The_Fur
9th Mar 2002, 05:30 AM
err?

Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany


One thing I'd have to hand to Hitler is that he got there by his own virtue rather then being planted by a foreign power. I don't see how the US had any hand in consolidating his position.

Nightmare
9th Mar 2002, 05:37 AM
My point being that the US government never was that particular
about Geneva conventions, human rights etc -
as long as they didn`t have to dirty their own hands with it
and the billions kept rolling in.

Sort of the kettle calling the pot black, eh?

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by The_Fur
err?
One thing I'd have to hand to Hitler is that he got there by his own virtue rather then being planted by a foreign power. I don't see how the US had any hand in consolidating his position.

I know for sure that the USA (Rosevelt) didn't do anything to prevent him from getting power or even invading Tchecoslovaquia, Polan, Belgium, France, ...

EDIT: and I know France didn't do much too ;)

jaunty
9th Mar 2002, 06:27 AM
Indeed, the US had nothing to do with WW2 until they were bombed by Japan. Then they became ultra-nationalist and decided to start raping the world.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by jaunty
Indeed, the US had nothing to do with WW2 until they were bombed by Japan. Then they became ultra-nationalist and decided to start raping the world.

nice sum up of the 20th century :D

2_SeeK_U
9th Mar 2002, 06:44 AM
posted by {GD}NTKB
Fox news is a decent source if you can filter the inane parts
Never trust western media, FOX news is made in america, america for all you know might be covering up things to support themselves.
Our history teacher said that the Attacks on WTC (I TOTALLY THINK THIS IS FALSE AND RESPECT THE LIVES LOST IN THIS TRADERGY) where inflicted not by taliban but by america themselfs (AGAIN I STRESS THAT I DON'T BELIVE THIS POINT, ITS JUST ANOTHER PERSONS OUTLOOK).
America makes money from war ( l forget how he said it) and thats why alot of money is geared towards the military even now when the coldwar is over. USA also (as my teacher stated once again) wants control of the oil fields there. This is also the reason for the JFK assasination (l swear my teacher has been whatching too much Xfiles) in that he wanted to make peace with the eastern countries and ALOT of people high up didn't like that....

Anyway thats what my history teahcer reckons,
I don't have my own outlook, my mind switches of in history, its amazing l remembered he said THAT!!!

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 06:50 AM
medias are too funny

in France, journalist are constantly bashing politicians or the government
because they are corrupted, because they don't do their job, ...
there are ministers that resign or even go to jail
ppl aren't affraid of criticizing the state, that's democracy

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 06:50 AM
I love how the ultra-right elements are filled with joy to see us bombing thousands of women and children, and proclaim with glee that we are defending freedom by gunning down old men with 50 year old AK-47's with our apache helicopters, all the while supporting the very same policies as every bonapartist dictator from Napoleon to Stalin at home, and when all of a sudden one of their soldiers dies ("we're in a war!" after all, or so they say), they say it justifies more violence!

What kind of dolt goes to war with someone, and then justifies the war with the death of their soldiers? Where were the bonapartists with their cries of "Geneve Convention!" when we were murdering innocent children, executing al Qaida and Taliban (since after all, if killing our solder in battle is execution, the same goes for us), or locking up innocent people in pens with nothing but a mat and a bucket to **** in. The right likes to make sad attempts to pretend they care about the constitution, so where were they when the Bush administration revealed its openly dictatorial shadow government, one composed entirely of the executive branch. I suppose if our government dies off, we don't need a democratic legislature, as if it was democratic now. And let us not forget nothing in the Constitution allows for a backup government.

In July of 1917, Alexander Kerensky attempted to exploit military patriotism in the imperialist war, and instituted bonapartist policies at home. When he put down the Bolshevik uprising in July, there was no one left to oppose him. That gap was filled by Kornilov's military coup, which was only stopped because of the Bolsheviks distributing guns to the people. The lesson here is that when you play with the idea of a dictatorship, either the masses will take you down and regain freedom, or a coup d'etat will take the nation more to the right-wing, and become more dictatorial, more bonapartist/Nazi/Stalinist, and become more repressive.

I can see Bush in this position as his generals politely ask him to abdicate his throne: "Kerensky could not but understand at last that his political playing with the idea of dictatorship was taking a serious turn, and might end most unfortunately for him." (Leon Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution)

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 07:00 AM
Our history teacher said that the Attacks on WTC (I TOTALLY THINK THIS IS FALSE AND RESPECT THE LIVES LOST IN THIS TRADERGY) where inflicted not by taliban but by america themselfs (AGAIN I STRESS THAT I DON'T BELIVE THIS POINT, ITS JUST ANOTHER PERSONS OUTLOOK).
America makes money from war ( l forget how he said it) and thats why alot of money is geared towards the military even now when the coldwar is over. USA also (as my teacher stated once again) wants control of the oil fields there. This is also the reason for the JFK assasination (l swear my teacher has been whatching too much Xfiles) in that he wanted to make peace with the eastern countries and ALOT of people high up didn't like that....
Your teacher has been watching reality. There has thus far been no evidence bin Laden was responsible. We are told they have evidence, but just can't release it. We are supposed to trust them. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that 1) the government new about it ahead of time or 2) was responsible outright.

1) Remember the stories about insider trading? People thought bin Laden was getting rich because he knew about the attacks ahead of time. But a further examination by a British newspaper (it was either the Independent or the Guardian) traced the trading back to the second highest man in the CIA. Immediatly after that was discovered, the state owned media, which had said it would look into it, ceased all reporting on it. Nothing on the subject has been mentioned since.
2) The United States released a video tape of bin Laden supposedly saying he committed the attacks. the German Monitor found that the government mistranslated by adding words like "beforehhand". The tape was real, but all bin Laden was doing was talking about the attacks afterwards. The government tried to lie and say that it was a preattack plan. Why, if the government has evidence like it says, must it resort to making up evidence?
3) The plan to attack Afghanistan has been under way for years. The U.S. wants an oil pipeline through Afghanistan so that it has access to the Caspian oil reserves. Afghanistan itself is rich in mineral resources. This has been openly discussed in Congress before. In July of 2001, Pakistan was told there woud be an attack on Afghanistan in mid-October. India heard the same thing. After the attacks on the WTC, the miltary was quickly sent to Afghanistan without delay. In other words, the attacks were so perfectly timed that the miltilary had exactly the ammount of time needed to reach Afghanistan and attack. That's a damn big coincidence.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 07:05 AM
hey don't say crap about Napoleon ;)

he was not a dictator as Stalin was
He never oppresed the french ppl, only the foreigners ;)
most of the political and school institutions are the same since his time

In a way, he was in favor of an european unity
he was more like a "mini caesar"

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 07:11 AM
And France is still an oppressive dictatorial regime, especially since the Guallist takeover after World War II. Napoleon was the example of bourgeois reaction. When the bourgeois position becomes weak, they always resort to oppression. France now openly facilitates anti-democratic institutions. Chirac could dissolve your National Assembly if he wanted.

MetalMickey
9th Mar 2002, 07:14 AM
Jesus Christ, the world has gone mad. America is supposed to be the good guys, but its full of people who want to dissolve the geneva convention.

What the hell happened?

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 07:18 AM
The collapse of Bretton Woods happened.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader And France is still an oppressive dictatorial regime, especially since the Guallist takeover after World War II.
using smart words doesn't make you smart RL

Napoleon was the example of bourgeois reaction. When the bourgeois position becomes weak, they always resort to oppression.
french have FAR more freedom that americans
anyway is no oppression in france. there are strikes or demonstrations EVERY DAY :
I was looking at the "traffic forecast" and they were giving the places of the daily ones ;)

France now openly facilitates anti-democratic institutions.
explain?

Chirac could dissolve your National Assembly if he wanted.
he did actually and lose the polls

Nightmare
9th Mar 2002, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by The_Fur
err?



One thing I'd have to hand to Hitler is that he got there by his own virtue rather then being planted by a foreign power. I don't see how the US had any hand in consolidating his position.

He`s on the list because some big US companies were allowed
to trade with Germany even while they were bombing London.
The almighty dollar and all that.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 07:29 AM
You have freedom? Carry a gun down through city hall and see what happens. You'll have the freedom to be gunned by the police, who are the only people with the freedom to do just what you did. The police can carry guns and you can't because police are considered superior as human beings. As servants of the state machine they deserve more. Your youth are herded into schools based on their test scores, instituting a sort of intellectual segregation. The "smartest", surprise surprise, end up serving the government. Speaking of smartest, if you consider "Gaullist" a smart word in France, I suspect your educational system is as pathetic as ours.
Polls won't matter much if Chirac claims emergency powers. And if he does it in the name of counter-terrorism, he WILL get the approval of the Constitutional Council (if I am correct in remembering that he even needs the approval of the Council).

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
You have freedom? Carry a gun down through city hall and see what happens. You'll have the freedom to be gunned by the police, who are the only people with the freedom to do just what you did. The police can carry guns and you can't because police are considered superior as human beings. As servants of the state machine they deserve more.
I don't want ppl in france to be able to carry guns!

Your youth are herded into schools based on their test scores, instituting a sort of intellectual segregation. The "smartest", surprise surprise, end up serving the government.
You don't know what you're talking about :(
ANYBODY here in france can achieve high studies in ANY matter
the brightest don't work for the state, most of them even leave the country
your school system is based on segregation, money segregation

EDIT: school are free here
guess how much i've paid this year for my engineer studies ( top level here ;) ) ...
12€ (about 10$) for the year!
and for the rest (food,...) i've got a scholarship because I can't pay everything
you can't say the same : our english teacher (she's american) ask us to prepare something about an US university
(her daughter is a teacher at Havard)
we've look and the thing that stroke us was the price (and the religous schools ;) )
and she was the first to admin that
she even said that we don't realize the luck we have to live in "this wonderful country" ;)

Speaking of smartest, if you consider "Gaullist" a smart word in France, I suspect your educational system is as pathetic as ours.
I'm sorry but if you mispell the word, how can i understand it ;)
and no the gaulism is not that popular anymore

Polls won't matter much if Chirac claims emergency powers. And if he does it in the name of counter-terrorism, he WILL get the approval of the Constitutional Council (if I am correct in remembering that he even needs the approval of the Council).
Chirac (or any president) would never claims emergency powers
you cannot apply the US paranoid way of thinking to french ppl

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 07:48 AM
I don't want ppl in france to be able to carry guns!
Like I said, no freedom in France.

You don't know what you're talking about
ANYBODY here in france can achieve high studies in ANY matter
the brightest don't work for the state, most of them even leave the country
your school system is based on segregation, money segregation
The same goes for yours. In your school system the best and the brightest are those that can pay for private tutors. I find it sad that I know more about your educational system than you do. Don't you know how schools are selected for students? All students are tested and you can get into certain levels of higher education based on that. Your baccalaureat alone determines whether or not you can attain full studies at a college, or a general vocational style study.

I'm sorry but if you mispell the word, how can i understand it
and no the gaulism is not that popular anymore
Oh, so you because I made a typo you tried to exploit it to hide the weakeness of everything else you said?

If Gaullism is not popular, please tell me how your second most popular party is the RPR, and why the ruling Socialist Party has no difference from them? Your president is Gaullist, and to my understanding enjoys high popularity, and will probably win the presidential elections this year.

Chirac (or any president) would never claims emergency powers
LOL! :lol: You actually believe the ruling classes won't do whatever it takes to stay in power? And this from the nation that gave us the Revolution of 1848 and the Paris Commune!

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 07:56 AM
@ RL :
from my previous post EDIT :
school are free here
guess how much i've paid this year for my engineer studies ( top level here ) ...
12€ (about 10$) for the year!
and for the rest (food,...) i've got a scholarship because I can't pay everything
you can't say the same : our english teacher (she's american) ask us to prepare something about an US university
(her daughter is a teacher at Havard)
we've look and the thing that stroke us was the price (and the religous schools )
and she was the first to admin that
she even said that we don't realize the luck we have to live in "this wonderful country"


anyway, I repeat "you don't know what you're talking about"
The baccalaureat doesn't determine ANYTHING in our future studies
It's RIDICULOUSLY easy to pass it if you really want to.

The same goes for yours. In your school system the best and the brightest are those that can pay for private tutors.
that's sad you think that... this is absolutly false!!
some ppl actually use tutor, but most are help by other students
I don't know one person who's helped by a tutor.
this kind of things are really rare

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:01 AM
i remember a time you said you only argue about things you know
but it's wrong here is the proof :

If Gaullism is not popular, please tell me how your second most popular party is the RPR, and why the ruling Socialist Party has no difference from them? Your president is Gaullist, and to my understanding enjoys high popularity, and will probably win the presidential elections this year.

- nodoby at the RPR claims being a gaulist. most gaulists are old or dead.
there is only one candidat that says he's gaulist, but he's a half- dead (that's true ;) ) old mad man that is more of a fascist

- the RPR is about to change it's name to UEM "Union En Movement"

Gaulism is dead

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:02 AM
I repeat that you have a segregated rich and poor society as well. Your baccalaureat determines what kind of higher ed you get. A general one will get you full college studies. A professional one forces you into profession-based studies. Because the rich are more likely to get the former, they are more likely to move up in society. Its the same in France, its the same in America. All capitalist states have income discrimination.

that's sad you think that... this is absolutly false!!
some ppl actually use tutor, but most are help by other students
I don't know one person who's helped by a tutor
How many upper-1% people do you personally know at all?

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:05 AM
nodoby at the RPR claims being a gaulist. most gaulists are old or dead.
there is only one candidat that say he's gaulist, but he's a half- dead (that's true ) old mad man that is more of a fascist
The RPR was founded for the explicit purpose of continuing the Gaullist legacy. It is recognized by all of the world, with the exception of you apparently, that the RPR is neo-Gaullist. If you think the RPR is not Gaullist, I assume you got the Professional Baccalaureat.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
I repeat that you have a segregated rich and poor society as well. Your baccalaureat determines what kind of higher ed you get. A general one will get you full college studies. A professional one forces you into profession-based studies. Because the rich are more likely to get the former

false again ;)
STUDIES ARE FREE!
there is not a single reason that would force a "poor" to chose a professional BAC.

even worse: professional BAC needs you to buy your own supply for the job you're learning
(eg: cooks must buy theur pots, ...)

the whole school system in france is made to avoid money segregation I swear it!
nearly anybody can get a good scholarship, there are a lot of university residences, university restaurant and so on
the scholar achivement has nothing to do with money
there are private school where you have to pay (still cheaper than in the USA)
but they are not better than free ones

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
The RPR was founded for the explicit purpose of continuing the Gaullist legacy. It is recognized by all of the world, with the exception of you apparently, that the RPR is neo-Gaullist. If you think the RPR is not Gaullist, I assume you got the Professional Baccalaureat.

:D

no really, everybody at the RPR is trying to throw away every little bit of Gaulism

EDIT: ppl nearly get ashamed from being gaulist!

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:12 AM
Do some research, Freon. the RPR is a gaullist party. The French recognize this as does the world. If you don't take the RPR's position as pro-Gaullism to be Gaullism, just compare their ideology to de Gaulle's, and tell me they are not nearly identical. Both are for concetrated power in the executive, esp. the presidency, for a strong state, a strong military, and a weak National Assembly.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:15 AM
false again
STUDIES ARE FREE!
there is not a single reason that would force a "poor" to chose a professional BAC
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!
I didn't say they are not free, I said the rich have a better chance of getting into good schools! This is a FACT! France is in no away against money discrimination. It is a CAPITALIST country, and in capitalist countries there are rich and there are poor, and the rich have better chances. Just because the traitors in the socialist party, who are no different from the RPR, say they want to end it doesn't mean its gone.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:20 AM
From Frenchculture.org: "Admission and promotion is through a system of merit-based examinations." You deny this? This is intended to avoid socio-economic discrimination, which it does to a degree, but what it means is that the intelligent people are educated and the stupid are not. One would think that the uneducated would need education, but apparently logic is a dead art.

Edit: And I have still seen nothing to refute my views on the above, or that the good schools lead to government service (most in the government come from the Grandes Ecoles, if I recall the name correctly).

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
Do some research, Freon. the RPR is a gaullist party. The French recognize this as does the world. If you don't take the RPR's position as pro-Gaullism to be Gaullism, just compare their ideology to de Gaulle's, and tell me they are not nearly identical.

I know that the RPR was found on the Gaulist ideology, but a lot of things have changed
youngest ppl at the RPR try to get rid of this (they even try to get rid of Chirac ;) )

Both are for concetrated power in the executive, esp. the presidency
that really depends on the current president

for a strong state,
since the RPR is a pro Europe party, they are nearly for a weak state
DeGaulle would have NEVER accept a global currency like the Euro

a strong military
DeGaulle was a military man
who suppresed the obligatory military service? Chirac did

and a weak National Assembly.
that's not that true
the National Assembly can do pretty much want it want
the Senat can refuse the laws but only one time IIRC
only the Conseil d'Etat can break law and decrets and it's formed by ppl from differents parties

IIRC DeGaulle had commie in hie first gvt after the war ;)

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
I didn't say they are not free, I said the rich have a better chance of getting into good schools!
but just tell me how???

"Admission and promotion is through a system of merit-based examinations"
it doesn't make poor or stupid ppl fail their studies since this test are only made for high level studies
if someone want to become, let's say doctor, he HAS to work that's obvious
but nothing will prevent him from passing his BAC and entering the medecine FAC (university)
but he will get in 2nd year only if he's good enough (ie: if he has worked during the previous 15 years)

if he fail, nothing prevents him for trying again (just 1 time) or even trying another school

do you want anybody to become a heart srugeon ;)

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:28 AM
I know that the RPR was found on the Gaulist ideology, but a lot of things have changed
youngest ppl at the RPR try to get rid of this (they even try to get rid of Chirac )
Chirac founded the RPR, so if it was founded on Gaullist ideology, I assume he is a Guallist. Since he is still considered a right-wing member of the party, it appears he has not changed at all.

since the RPR is a pro Europe party, they are nearly for a weak state
DeGaulle would have NEVER accept a global currency like the Euro
I understand that the RPR is divided on integration. The de jury leader of the party, whose name I have no purchase on at the moment, is pro-integration, but Chirac only accepts it as much as it is required for his political career. Changing to survive is not an abdication of Gaullism. Dialectically, european integration is a quantity of Guallism, not a quality.

DeGaulle was a military man
who suppresed the obligatory military service? Chirac did

That doesn't weaken the military at all, and see above.

that's not that true
the National Assembly can do pretty much want it want
the Senat can refuse the laws but only one time IIRC
only the Conseil d'Etat can break law and decrets and it's formed by ppl from differents parties
The President can refuse to promulgate a law, thus at the very least delaying it from taking effect. If the NA does something the President doesn't like, he can dissolve it.

IIRC DeGaulle had commie in hie first gvt after the war
That only proves that you don't have to be totally right-wing to be Gaullist, which means the above, like removing compulsary military service, means nothing.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:31 AM
but just tell me how???
I already did, they can afford tutoring. I've read articles with quotes from French officials admitting that this has created discrimination.

it doesn't make poor or stupid ppl fail their studies since this test are only made for high level studies
That's exactly the point! Why are the poor not worthy of higher studies? Do they deserve to live as ignorant bums because of how they were born?

do you want anybody to become a heart srugeon
I want someone trained to be a heart surgeon. I don't see why a poor man is too inferior to get that training.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
Edit: And I have still seen nothing to refute my views on the above, or that the good schools lead to government service (most in the government come from the Grandes Ecoles, if I recall the name correctly).

that's the ENA : Ecole National d'Administrion
it's a (public) school made for ppl who want to become politicians, that doesn't mean it's the best school
there are a lot of better math, physique, litterature, ... schools that doesn't make you become a politician ... that's so obvious it sounds stupid ;)

and FYI, being at the "head of the state" is not a great achievment. maybe it is for you, but ppl have more estime for football players or TV stars :D
if you ask somebody if he wants to be president, chances are that he doesn't care at all

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:33 AM
Most people in the ENA come from a Grandes Ecoles school.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:40 AM
you're truly amazing, are you reading my posts ;)

That's exactly the point! Why are the poor not worthy of higher studies? Do they deserve to live as ignorant bums because of how they were born?

I want someone trained to be a heart surgeon. I don't see why a poor man is too inferior to get that training.

take a poor and stupid man ;)
he goes to school and learn a lot af thing freely for about 15 years
you only have to work very little to pass the BAC
and you can enter the medic FAC regardless of you BAC result
if he wants to become a surgeon (and is drived enough) there are no reason for him to fail! rich or poor

he gain the same courses as the others and has to pass the same exams
if he has studied enough he will pass in 2nd year (the hardest)

let's say he's really stupid ;) but manage to achieve his studies
he may not find a job even in the worst hospital
that's why there are tests

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
The President can refuse to promulgate a law, thus at the very least delaying it from taking effect. If the NA does something the President doesn't like, he can dissolve it.

no, no and no
the president can't do much against the laws made by the NA
all he can do is to disolve it
but he can only do it every 6 months and not more than 2 times in his mandat IIRC

so the NA can ALWAYS make the law

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
Most people in the ENA come from a Grandes Ecoles school.

I don't see what you're meaning ??
there are politicians that don't come from ENA
and maybe ENArques that don't become politicians

(then what kind of "Grande Ecoles" do you mean?)

anyway, if you're meaning that you have to go the a grande ecole (like Political Sciences) to enter the ENA, I don't see the pb since anybody can enter a grande ecole

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:59 AM
take a poor and stupid man
he goes to school and learn a lot af thing freely for about 15 years
you only have to work very little to pass the BAC
and you can enter the medic FAC regardless of you BAC result
if he wants to become a surgeon (and is drived enough) there are no reason for him to fail! rich or poor

he gain the same courses as the others and has to pass the same exams
if he has studied enough he will pass in 2nd year (the hardest)

let's say he's really stupid but manage to achieve his studies
he may not find a job even in the worst hospital
that's why there are tests
Are you saying that you learn to do heart surgery in high school? Because seems you are saying the poor don't deserve higher studies because they have access to lower education. I want to know WHY a rich man who puts in the same effort deserves to be more likely to get those higher studies, and why an uneducated man is denied education. A supra-genius doesn't need higher ed, an uneducated man does, yet you give it to the former. Don't tell me "because he should have gotten educated in highs school"; you learn things like heart surgery or philosophy or art in higher ed, not high school. The two are unrelated.

no, no and no
the president can't do much against the laws made by the NA
all he can do is to disolve it
but he can only do it every 6 months and not more than 2 times in his mandat IIRC

so the NA can ALWAYS make the law
The President has to make a law official. If he doesn't want to promulgate it, the law sits until the president does, or another president is elected and does it. The Senate can delay it too.

I don't see what you're meaning ??
there are politicians that don't come from ENA
and maybe ENArques that don't become politicians

(then what kind of "Grande Ecoles" do you mean?)

anyway, if you're meaning that you have to go the a grande ecole (like Political Sciences) to enter the ENA, I don't see the pb since anybody can enter a grande ecole
That is where you are wrong. The grande ecoles are require the highest scores on the entry tests. If you don't do very well on them, you don't get in. Since most people in the government start from the grandes ecoles, that means most people in the government are people who did well at that test. Since the wealthy are more likely to do well, they are thus more likely to have a voice in government. The poor are shut out.

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 09:10 AM
Are you saying that you learn to do heart surgery in high school? Because seems you are saying the poor don't deserve higher studies because they have access to lower education. I want to know WHY a rich man who puts in the same effort deserves to be more likely to get those higher studies, and why an uneducated man is denied education. A supra-genius doesn't need higher ed, an uneducated man does, yet you give it to the former. Don't tell me "because he should have gotten educated in highs school"; you learn things like heart surgery or philosophy or art in higher ed, not high school. The two are unrelated.
either you're stupid or you want to get me mad ;)
of course you don't leanr surgery in your "high scool"
but it's the way universities are called here
"high scool" = "grande ecole" st00pid ;)

in France :
Ecole primaire -> Elementary school
College + Lycée -> High School
Univeristy -> College
english is strange ;)

anyway that's amazing you take a mispelled word or sentence and throw it in other's face
don't forget that i'm french :D
what i said was rich/poor/fools/smart guys learn the same things at high school and have the same chances of entering university

The President has to make a law official. If he doesn't want to promulgate it, the law sits until the president does, or another president is elected and does it. The Senate can delay it too.
no he's forced to accept it
i don't remember a single law refused by a president

That is where you are wrong. The grande ecoles are require the highest scores on the entry tests. If you don't do very well on them, you don't get in. Since most people in the government start from the grandes ecoles, that means most people in the government are people who did well at that test. Since the wealthy are more likely to do well, they are thus more likely to have a voice in government. The poor are shut out.
but ppl don't have to enter ENA to become politicians or whatever!!
anyway politicians,laws,... have relativly little influence on ppl here

Freon
9th Mar 2002, 09:13 AM
anyway, I think we should stop arguing since the whole page is only filled by the two of us ;)

but I'm sad I've managed to convince you, really :(
I hope I could make you see that the scholar system is really great here and I praise it everyday for allowing me (the average not rich nor smart guy) to follow high studies (BAC+5) in a field I love (computer) without paying much

I would have never be able to do the same in your country :(

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 09:26 AM
either you're stupid or you want to get me mad
of course you don't leanr surgery in your "high scool"
but it's the way universities are called here
"high scool" = "grande ecole" st00pid

in France :
Ecole primaire -> Elementary school
College + Lycée -> High School
Univeristy -> College
english is strange

I refer to it in the english sense. The grandes ecoles are the best of the best schools in France, which require you to the best on the testing, and take the most rigorous coures in high school. They are NOT available to everyone.

anyway that's amazing you take a mispelled word or sentence and throw it in other's face
don't forget that i'm french

What the hell are you talking about? Wern't you the one who just hours ago tried to criticize me based on my typo of "Guallist"?

what i said was rich/poor/fools/smart guys learn the same things at high school and have the same chances of entering university
I have already established that that is not true. A poor man may learn the same thing in high school, but he learns different things OUT of school. The rich man will learn much more out of school because he can afford tutors, books, and so forth, and thus has better chances on the tests.

no he's forced to accept it
i don't remember a single law refused by a president
I was wrong when I said he can delay it indefinitely (sleeplessness and all), but he can delay it. He can also send it back to the NA, which the NA cannot stop.

but ppl don't have to enter ENA to become politicians or whatever!!
anyway politicians,laws,... have relativly little influence on ppl here
I didn't say they did. You don't have to be rich to go to college in America, but that doesn't mean everyone has an equal chance. The ENA produces a majority of the politicians.

Sidewinder
9th Mar 2002, 09:27 AM
WTF!? I didnt say Arabs, I didnt say MUSLIMS I SAID AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN.
is it just me, or did he say towelban?

Hadmar
9th Mar 2002, 09:51 AM
I have already established that that is not true. A poor man may learn the same thing in high school, but he learns different things OUT of school. The rich man will learn much more out of school because he can afford tutors, books, and so forth, and thus has better chances on the tests.
Rogue, what has the stuff someone learns out of school to do with the educational system? That the rich always have better chances couse of their money (and if it's only couse they have less worries on their mind) is nothing new but I don't see how you can blame an educational system for what happens outside of it.

[edit]
I don't want ppl in france to be able to carry guns!
Why?

jaeg
9th Mar 2002, 10:07 AM
It's quite apparent that you guys just want to argue and not discuss the topic.

Anyways, we all know the Geneva Convention was made up by Europe after they realized what fools they looked like to the rest of the world.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 10:31 AM
I don't see how you can blame an educational system for what happens outside of it.
That wasn't the point. Because of the French system, what is learned outside of school is important. If you are poor and can't learn outside of school, you could end up barred from descent higher ed completely.

Hadmar
9th Mar 2002, 10:40 AM
So the tests for the higher levels are NOT based on what you learn in the lower levels?

NTKB
9th Mar 2002, 10:42 AM
Holy crap. Alot happens when you sleep for 8 measly hours.

Ok I read up everything. I know the current US government is crap compared to what it should be according to the Constitution. There arent supposed to be any taxes, army, or gun control laws for starters. I live in Honduras C.A. for 2 years and there people walk around with guns in there belts... and you know what? Besides a few drunk fools killing eachother once in a blue moon there are no killings! You can walk into town hall with your gun. You can walk into the movie theater with your gun. My father owns a very large farm there and its worth in total land and assets is close to 1$million yet he only pays 1600 LEMPIRAS! Thats 100$ a year IN TAXES! Can you believe that!? And the funny thing is that even though the labor is cheap and he pays so little taxes since he has such little oppresion by the government he pays his workers DOUBLE what the standard is there.

Now about my point. Even though I dont agree with the current US government I live here. The islamic militants attacked my people. It could have been ME there! or my FATHER! The US does not use conquest and all out war to conquer a country. We use trade and diplomacy. When you bring guns and bombs into a situation, I believe it gives you the right to defend yourself in like manner. Although I dont think it would be right to kill ANYONE it would have been much more "tolerated" had the targets been military. But they werent. They killed people from over 60 nations who probobly 80% didnt even know the attackers. I am not saying the US is an angle and that there foreign policy is good. I mean look at you guys! Ive learned alot about world opinion here towards the US here since you can hear it straight from the mouths of the common man. If you would listen to foreign presidents then you would think everything is hunky dory.

The US needs a massive cleanup and shakedown of its policys and it needs to stop conquering through diplomacy. This country has done TREMENDOUS good in the past when it was warranted. Like in WW2. We saved countless millions by giving countless thousands of our lives in a conflict that might not have effected us as much as we would believe (Japans attack on the US was provoked by blockades and though talk). The US needs to realize that cultures and ethnic groups might not share our ideals but we can still cooexist peacefully and trade with them. There is no need to "Democrize" the world especially with the current form of "freedom."

Rogueleader I admire your philosophy for one reason. It makes perfect sense in a utopian world. Communism would be THE way to go. Although I dont like capitilism any better I dont think that communism would ever work with the way ppl are in this world. Maybe nto now. Either way weve had this discussion countless times about peopels greed etc.. so lets leave that out on this one! ;)

MetalMickey
9th Mar 2002, 10:53 AM
Congratulations on destroying the discussion Rogue Leader. Next time you want to start a new topic, hit the POST button, and not the REPLY button.

It really pisses me off the way you drag half the serious discussions here off topic.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 11:02 AM
If people are greedy, why do you think they would support a system that takes from them more than it gives as opposed to one that gives them what they work for? The fact that socialism has proven itself to be the most effective economic and social system in the early (socialist) days of the USSR testifies to that. It fulfills human nature by providing the natural free-associative division of labor. But I don't want to get off track, so back to the original topic.

The U.S. is dying. The imperialist foreign policy, the doctrinaire dictatorship domestically, and the right-word movement of the country since the turn of the century are all signs of gradual decay. The WTC attack was symbolic as the beginnings of a crumbling government. The ruling classes have been metaphorically beaten to the ground. The attack symbolized massive resistance to their policies, and as such they must resort to totalitarianism. The government at this point reminds me of a dog that has been beaten, and is now paranoid of everyone. As soon as signs appeared of resistance to it, it responded by attacking everything that it perceived as in the least bit threatening. Now we have the government jailing anyone who criticizes it on violation of the Sedition Act (or the USA Patriot Act, which is effectivly just the Sedition Act on steroids), foreigners being detained for no reason and being tried in secret courts (how many have been executed summarily thus far in military tribunals? no one knows, they're secret), and the military on a rampage to destroy any country it thinks might attack it. Why would we be attacking nations for developing nuclear weapons, when we were the ones that brought those god-damned things into existance and are the only country to have used them in war?

The government's paranoia will feed itself. Each time they catch someone on Sedition charges, they will see it as need for further arrests. As soon as the military feels that the situation is out of control, we will have a coup.

Edit: MM, please tell me who said "hey don't say crap about Napoleon".

MetalMickey
9th Mar 2002, 11:09 AM
Fine, he brought it up originally, but try to get into the habit of starting a new thread when things go wildly off-topic.

Dugstar
9th Mar 2002, 11:27 AM
Rogue, are there any decent countries in this world? Or should we all just kill ourselves?:)

OICW
9th Mar 2002, 05:07 PM
Rogue's all for true socialist counties but I think he overestimates his faith in human goodwill and charity if a socialist country sprang up :)

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
Edit: MM, please tell me who said "hey don't say crap about Napoleon".
But who continued the argument because they are never wrong?:rolleyes: You killed the thread... I don't really care, but it is annoying if its something you want to follow.

vedder
9th Mar 2002, 07:42 PM
This thread is nothing but complete crap. I think I lost a few brain cells over the last 4 pages or so.

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by eddievedder
This thread is nothing but complete crap. I think I lost a few brain cells over the last 4 pages or so.
Every single post? I only thought page 3 was crap...

vedder
9th Mar 2002, 08:31 PM
Nope, whole thing:D

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 08:36 PM
I see....:D

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:43 PM
But who continued the argument because they are never wrong? You killed the thread... I don't really care, but it is annoying if its something you want to follow.
Mad Dog, maybe you know something about medical problems. Can you tell what disease I have when I see Freon continuing an argument, too? I mean, he obviously didn't, since you don't see it. Is there is a name for that disease? Like "attentionitis"?

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 08:45 PM
And OICW, Mad Dog can't post at the moment so I will speak for him. You continued something off topic by responding to it, so go to hell. :rolleyes: That's what Mad Dog would say.

Mad_Dog
9th Mar 2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
And OICW, Mad Dog can't post at the moment so I will speak for him. You continued something off topic by responding to it, so go to hell. :rolleyes: That's what Mad Dog would say.
No, I would say he's right. So are you... Freon continued the argument as well. So you were both annoying.

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 09:38 PM
You are continuing this off topic discussion. What does that make you?

OICW
9th Mar 2002, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
And OICW, Mad Dog can't post at the moment so I will speak for him. You continued something off topic by responding to it, so go to hell. :rolleyes: That's what Mad Dog would say.

Well Rogue, if I get there before you, I'll save you a nice spot in hell, maybe if I can cheat the devil to give me 2 glasses of water that'd be a nice welcome :p

RogueLeader
9th Mar 2002, 09:42 PM
You can't cheat me, I mean...err, the devil, he's too clever. Devilishly clever.

Mad_Dog
10th Mar 2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by RogueLeader
You are continuing this off topic discussion. What does that make you?
Same as you.;)