What do you want me to say? The US done everything? How the hell can I say that when it's obviously not true? Sure, in Europe's case the US provided $13 billion (mostly in grants, not loans) in assistance, and it was aimed at stabilizing democratic institutions, but it was still the Europeans themselves who made the plan work!
You guys do realize that arguing with msfe and alfonso is a waste of time, right? You do it just to fill the hours, right?
You're right. Its Optionals fault. He used to step in with that 'retarded' pic and remind me but I seem to have forgotten in his abscence. But to be fair, its not really arguing. That would imply that there are two sides providing factual arguments. All I see so far are exaggerations, outright lies and wrong information from their side.
You should also care about the future and your own country if you read this guy hihi : http://www.psychops.com/Who_is_Kurt_/who_is_kurt_.html "I want to take a minute to welcome you to the Psychops web page and tell you a little bit about myself. In 1985 I began working with survivors of various types of occultic and mind-control programming and was basically "drafted" into providing educational and consultation services to mental health professionals who counsel victims of satanic ritual abuse (SRA) and government mind control. Over the years I have advised and aided in several police investigations involving SRA crimes. In all, I have 20 some years of research and experience relating to this subject matter. I have tried to compile this information in a logical, socially responsible manner for you. If you have any questions and/or suggestions, please let me know. " http://www.psychops.com/New_Millennium/new_millennium.html " I became aware of our government's involvement in behavioral modification at a very young age as my father and two uncles worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and openly discussed many of these "behavioral modification" experiments. They were privy to this classified information, in part, as one uncle provided security for a renown Nazi doctor who was smuggled out of post-war Germany as a part of Operation Paperclip--a clandestine, U.S. governmental operation in which foreign war criminals were imported into the United States. ... Many people are unaware of the extent to which our U.S. government has been experimenting on its citizens. Ironically, it's the government's own documents on human experimentation that most effectively breaks through the denial barrier. Following are excerpts out of actual documents that were secured through the Freedom of Information Act. A document dated May 11, 1953, cites experiments designed with the goal of "hypnotically increasing ability to learn and recall complex written matter," "hypnotically increasing ability to observe and recall a complex arrangement of physical objects" and "recall of hypnotically acquired information by very specific signals." A second document dated May 5, 1955, states, "A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods: 1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public." Skipping to subhead 6 on the same document, "Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness" and subhead 7, "Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called "brain-washing." Subhead 8 states, "Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use" and subhead 9 states, "Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use." Subhead 12 states, "Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced." So what does this all mean? One almost has to reread these quotes two or three times before the realization sinks in that our government's goal is to gain ultimate control over our minds. This is not much different than the goals of Adolf Hitler and The Third Reich. "
True. But it's not debating, either. Unless it's a debate conducted in a mental hospital. It's possible to have a discussion with even the most ignorant people because ignorance can be cured by education. But stupidity is a relatively permanent condition. As Peg Bracken once wrote, you have an obligation to stick up for your beliefs in public. Unless it's some jackass who wouldn't understand you if you argued all night.
leave my ex foe alone. optinal777 freeplay what's the diff? ahhhhhhhhhh gresh meats and fermenting cheeses Bring MondoTrader back. My new aliases xtraderx ChaosNSX Saynt Chaosity, kick butt bwaaahhahahahahahaah don't you go bashing democracy, if you don't like it I'll shove it down your throat whatever it takes to get the job done
Nice article by Cavuto about our "friends" across the Atlantic ! French Toast Friday, April 11, 2003 By Neil Cavuto I remember reading this story years ago about a guy who was fired at work yet no one immediately around him knew it at the time. So he kept coming into work. Every day at 9 a.m. sharp, he would take off his coat, neatly place it beside his desk, sit down and do his job -- making purchase orders, even attending meetings! Every day, every week, every month, for close to a year. That's how long it took before higher-ups realized he was still there. It got me thinking: That's one gutsy dude. He was out of work, but not out of moxie. And I guess the message here is if you think you're still relevant, you are. At least for a while, or until someone catches you. It happens all the time. Just look at the French. If you think about it, the United States all but fired them -- at least as a friend. And boy, did they deserve it. They campaigned against a war they said could drag on for months. But didn't say squat about a war we wrapped up in weeks. They called us an even bigger enemy to Iraqi civilians than Saddam. But didn't say a peep when those same Iraqis were cheering and tearing down statues of Saddam. They claimed they had a duty to rebuild a new Iraq. But wouldn't lift a finger to overthrow the old Iraq. Yet, they still merrily march into work on the global stage, thinking anyone cares what they have to say. News flash, Jacques, no one cares what you have to say, because you've been fired. Either you don't know it, or refuse to see it. So let me simply state it: For being sneaky, you're fired. For being arrogant, you're fired. For giving lip service to peace, but trying to profit off a dictator, you're fired. For claiming you want to help the little Iraqis, but preferring instead doing business with one big Iraqi, you're fired. For trying to bribe African nations at the United Nations to vote your way, you're fired. For threatening Eastern European countries they couldn't be in your club if they didn't vote your way, you're fired. You're fired for your phoniness, your smarmy-ness, your back-stabbing-ness, your clueless-ness. You're fired for thinking you still matter, when you don't. And for dismissing others, when they do. Maybe you don't think the world will catch up with you. It's too late. Most countries are already onto you. So let me be clear, Jacques. Effective now, the French... are toast. Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.
How to Hate the French: A User's Guide: Michael Lewis By Michael Lewis Berkeley, California, April 9 (Bloomberg) -- It's astonishing how much easier it has become in America in just the last few weeks to hate the French, even for those who shouldn't. A random sampling of three friends who disapprove of the war in Iraq and enjoy a good Burgundy reveals that all of them are inclined more than ever to detest our former ally. Trouble is, they don't know how to do it. Of course they are perfectly capable of spluttering about having ``saved their candy asses in two world wars,'' or even sneering how ``the food's just as good in London now as it is in Paris.'' True as those sentiments may be, they lack bite. The French do not care what we Americans think of their courage or their cuisine. And if you seek to hate well, you must know well the object of your hatred. In the case of France, we really don't. We must begin by making it clear that when we say we hate ``the French,'' it does not mean we hate all French people. That would hardly be possible. We haven't a harsh word for the French female (au contraire!) and only fond memories of the stout, pleasant folk of the French countryside who often treat us with kindness and generosity when we vacation among them. The French Male We detest only a certain breed of French male, particularly the French male who lives in or near Paris and who realized, at a sickeningly young age, that the way to get ahead was inside the incestuous and corrupt French political system. Were the coalition forces to make a brief detour through France on their way home from Iraq, this character would be their legitimate target. But of course no one any longer will think to invade France, however reasonable and painless it might seem (think of all the collaborators!). We must acknowledge that shock and awe is unlikely to resolve our French problem. We civilians must grapple with it, with wit and diplomacy. But this presents a troubling prospect. The French are wittier than us. Better diplomats, too. Our political leaders are never at their best when they seek to make their displeasure known to some foreign nation. In the late 1980s, upset by Japan's trade practices, they gathered on the steps of the Capitol and smashed a Toshiba boom box to bits with sledgehammers. A few weeks ago, upset by France's refusal to endorse our war, they changed, on the menus of Congressional restaurants, ``french fries'' to ``freedom fries'' and ``french toast'' to ``freedom toast.'' Wrong Message The net effect of this moronic symbolic act is to make it ever so slightly more difficult to get what you want in the government cafeteria, and to give pleasure and solace to exactly those people it seeks to disturb. If we accept that the world would be a better place without French political influence in it, we must ask: How do we isolate that influence, cut it off, and kill it? The answer is not freedom fries. The American politician has made a solipsistic error: He assumes that his French counterpart wishes to be liked. He believes that the mere act of letting him know that he is disliked is enough to cow him into submission. But the important French male does not wish to be liked. He does not wish even to be respected. He wishes to be noticed -- and in such a way that the people who do the noticing cannot help but also notice he is looking down on them. De Villepin French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is a case in point. De Villepin is the fellow who announced, haughtily, France's intention to veto Britain's plan for tests of Iraqi disarmament before Saddam Hussein was given a chance to consider it. In doing so, he sabotaged any last hope of a peaceful solution in Iraq, and alienated even many Americans who might have agreed with his aims. But what of it? He attracted our attention. To himself! To France! And when we all looked over to see what these funny little people were up to, we discovered that they were looking down at us. Who among us in America was not a tad shocked when a poll found that a third of French people surveyed were rooting for Saddam Hussein to win the war? Millions of Frenchmen, if the poll's sample was representative, appear to believe that it would be better for a murderous, unstable dictator to remain in power than for the coalition to achieve victory. What could explain such monstrous views? Minister of Importance It isn't because the French wish to preserve their valuable commercial ties to the regime. It is because they fear that if we win, it will be more difficult for them to get our attention. De Villepin did not want peace. He wanted importance, or its illusion, and the way to create the illusion of importance was to oppose the war. Since the war has started we have heard two main responses from de Villepin. One is his steady stream of disapproving remarks which can serve only to prolong the war, by encouraging the Iraqi opposition. The other is his demand that French companies be invited to make profits cleaning up postwar Iraq, which provoked, as he no doubt hoped it would, the indignation of the White House. Americans have long suspected that they don't actually like the French but it isn't until this war that those suspicions have been confirmed. Now they must learn how to express that dislike. I have spent only a bit of time among the French and cannot offer the most expert advice. But I would say this: To wound an important French male with words, you must choose them carefully. Taking the French out of fries will do nothing but reaffirm his view that he is your natural superior. Jed Babbin, a former U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense, spoke well when he said that ``going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion.'' In a sentence he isolated and insulted the vanity of the powerful French male while at the same time conveying an admirable air of indifference toward him. Those of us who cannot summon such wit would do better to remain silent, and pretend that the important French male does not exist. Otherwise we risk giving him exactly what he wants.
Quote from Babak: How to Hate the French: A User's Guide a typical hateful Babak off-topic article - moderator, please delete it from this "America Spreading Democracy" thread