Just how fucked is this Obama chap then?

OK, so everyone's happy that the illiterate godtard is out of the whitehouse, that's fair enough.....but have you seen the amount of sheer WORSHIP that's going on over there? FFS even cuntface sang for him!!

SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Although I tend to subsribe to the "dead quite soon" school....some crazy who actually believes the stuff shrub's spastics were saying about him during the election will kill him. Or just someone who can't comprehend democracy and therefor can't see why there should be a N* in charge of "his" country.

Still at least this one can read the funny black symbols in between the pictures.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama thus far is shaping up to be nigger Blair.

I hope he proves otherwise, but this had serious shades of the UK in 1997 all over again. Only with more razzmatazz, obv.

OK, NOW I'm scared!

In my opinion, he, they are pushing too far.

1. Never forget that the Americans voted for a President of the USA and nothing else. The rest of the world can be ready to be considered a bit little more than with W, but no more - see how he had so little to say about Gaza, this Obama... A President of the USA, black or white, remains a President of the USA. That is my point.
2. With all the mess W left, I wish good luck to the man... People expect too much of him and I doubt there will be a "happy ending" of the mandate.

I sincerely hope that, in four years, we will have something else to say that Obama was the first black American President.

As far as I'm concerned, we got the first hip-hopper in da house. He'll prorably party away all these 4 years and leave the White House completely unrestorable, with Puff Daddy carpets and discoballs permanently mounted in the bathrooms.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, we got the first hip-hopper in da house. He'll prorably party away all these 4 years and leave the White House completely unrestorable, with Puff Daddy carpets and discoballs permanently mounted in the bathrooms.

problematic at best....

I'll give him an honest chance before saying anything negative towards him.

One thing that is disturbing to me is all the hoopla people make about it being a "historic" event. Granted it might be, but it doen't warrant all this coverage that just drags on and on about this point. I mean not one person can just say "inaugeration" everyone HAS to say "historic" before it. It goes to show how hypocritical people are, they say "I don't see color, I only see the man", but yet they drag on and on about him being "the first black president"... but he's an acceptable black, its not like they voted in Kool-Moe-Dee in the office

I just can't wait for the inaugeration to be over with so people can stop all this incessent jiberish.

*and Jiphy, its not like the French government is one to take example of, considering they go behind and against UN sanctions and decisions all the time, only concerned of thier own personal gain...

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama thus far is shaping up to be nigger Blair.

I hope he proves otherwise, but this had serious shades of the UK in 1997 all over again. Only with more razzmatazz, obv.

How so? I really don't know much about Blair. How is his case and Obama's similar?

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

Polls of this type aint worth shit, and you know it. People say one thing then do another. His head will be called for within a year (if he still has one by then).

Jeff, I'm genuinely for your errrrrm gain.

EdelBrock wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama thus far is shaping up to be nigger Blair.

I hope he proves otherwise, but this had serious shades of the UK in 1997 all over again. Only with more razzmatazz, obv.

How so? I really don't know much about Blair. How is his case and Obama's similar?

You'll see soon enough. You will not like it.

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

Polls of this type aint worth shit, and you know it. People say one thing then do another. His head will be called for within a year (if he still has one by then)..

So your prediction-- not at all colored by your perspective-- is more accurate than some silly poll?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

I think what Cambo is talking about is that people's expectations and so-called "patience" will soon crumble into an over powering burden that Obama won't be able to rise to (or any president could for that matter).

Obama really won't change much, and when people come to this realization there are bound to be some negative feedback.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Doctor? wrote: OK, so everyone's happy that the illiterate godtard is out of the whitehouse

Not me...he's moving back to Dallas...why can't he just retire to that damn ranch he loved going to so much???

Texans gave him to the rest of the world-- you can have him back now.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

I think what Cambo is talking about is that people's expectations and so-called "patience" will soon crumble into an over powering burden that Obama won't be able to rise to (or any president could for that matter).

Obama really won't change much, and when people come to this realization there are bound to be some negative feedback.

I know what Cambo is saying. First grade seems to have paid off for me, eh?

It's just that what Cambo is saying bears no relationship tp the reality of the situation. Obama has extremely high ratings, and more to the point, people who rate Obama favorably do not expect him to turn things around overnight-- they are quite clear in saying that it will take AT LEAST two years.

As usual, Cambo is talking out of the wrong orifice. Prolly some demand for that skill in a magic act, though.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

Polls of this type aint worth shit, and you know it. People say one thing then do another. His head will be called for within a year (if he still has one by then)..

So your prediction-- not at all colored by your perspective-- is more accurate than some silly poll?

Time will tell.

Troops home and the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Let's record out two positions then for when they are needed.

Me: He'll be under serious attack for doing nothing, as the US continues it's nantucket sleighride down the shitter, within weeks, a few months at the outside. He will change nothing (other than, if the stokeie twat is right, introduce a whole pile of slimy oppressive legislation).

Commie: He'll sort the whole lot out within two years, and the current fireworks and pop concert worship will continue unopposed an unabated until then.

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Nope.

Polls of this type aint worth shit, and you know it. People say one thing then do another. His head will be called for within a year (if he still has one by then)..

So your prediction-- not at all colored by your perspective-- is more accurate than some silly poll?

Time will tell.

Troops home and the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Order to close Gitmo given in the first week. Order to Joint Chiefs to prepare plans for Iraq withdrawal given in the first week.**

Quite possibly, both orders given on Wednesday...But if the orders are given by Friday, will you be saying "See!"?

** Obama is saying that the Iraq withdrawal must be orderly and not result in a loss of the gains achieved. And he was quite explicit in the campaign that he would shift our emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, so expect an increased American military effort-- including action IN Pakistan-- there.

PIcking a fight with a nuclear power?

LOL

yup, much better than Shrub.

EDIT: still I suppose it's better than sending B52's and Apaches againt blokes armed with pointed sticks like the US usually does (and then loses).

Doctor? wrote: Let's record out two positions then for when they are needed.

Me: He'll be under serious attack for doing nothing, as the US continues it's nantucket sleighride down the shitter, within weeks, a few months at the outside. He will change nothing (other than, if the stokeie twat is right, introduce a whole pile of slimy oppressive legislation).

Commie: He'll sort the whole lot out within two years, and the current fireworks and pop concert worship will continue unopposed an unabated until then.

I don't know how long it will take to sort things out. He's anticipating that health care alone will take at least 4 years (which is 4 years too many for me).

What I've been saying is that the polls indicate that the public doesn't expect him to solve our problems overnight-- they're giving him at least two years.

If the public folds within the first few weeks, you will have been proven right.

Doctor? wrote: PIcking a fight with a nuclear power?

LOL

yup, much better than Shrub.

EDIT: still I suppose it's better than sending B52's and Apaches againt blokes armed with pointed sticks like the US usually does (and then loses).

Hardly. More like crossing the border to crush the Taliban, if Pakistan won't. He said as much in the campaign, if anybody was listening.

EdelBrock wrote: *and Jiphy, its not like the French government is one to take example of, considering they go behind and against UN sanctions and decisions all the time, only concerned of thier own personal gain...

There is no government in France. The Ministers are just puppets. Sarkozy is a tiny dictator, he decides and does... If we had gulags, some of his ministers should already be there.

That said, let me recall you that I was very upset by the fact Sarkozy had been elected and on that day, you told me it was a good thing for my country to have an ultra conservative pro-American president. Does my memory betray or did you change your mind?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

I wonder if I'll even bother with his Presidential Library once it opens...

Do you suppose this will be in the collection?

It's got a charming story about a pet goat...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: PIcking a fight with a nuclear power?

LOL

yup, much better than Shrub.

EDIT: still I suppose it's better than sending B52's and Apaches againt blokes armed with pointed sticks like the US usually does (and then loses).

Hardly. More like crossing the border to crush the Taliban, if Pakistan won't. He said as much in the campaign, if anybody was listening.

Ah, the good old way of spreading civil wars... Did the US learn nothing about the consequences of bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam war?

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: *and Jiphy, its not like the French government is one to take example of, considering they go behind and against UN sanctions and decisions all the time, only concerned of thier own personal gain...

There is no government in France. The Ministers are just puppets. Sarkozy is a tiny dictator, he decides and does... If we had gulags, some of his ministers should already be there.

That said, let me recall you that I was very upset by the fact Sarkozy had been elected and on that day, you told me it was a good thing for my country to have an ultra conservative pro-American president. Does my memory betray or did you change your mind?

I don't remember being pro-Sakozy, rather I was happy for the change and getting rid of Chirac. It seemed that Sarkozy was a better direction then him.

*note* that European conservatives are not equal and a quite opposite to American conservatives.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Let's record out two positions then for when they are needed.

Me: He'll be under serious attack for doing nothing, as the US continues it's nantucket sleighride down the shitter, within weeks, a few months at the outside. He will change nothing (other than, if the stokeie twat is right, introduce a whole pile of slimy oppressive legislation).

Commie: He'll sort the whole lot out within two years, and the current fireworks and pop concert worship will continue unopposed an unabated until then.

I don't know how long it will take to sort things out. He's anticipating that health care alone will take at least 4 years (which is 4 years too many for me).

What I've been saying is that the polls indicate that the public doesn't expect him to solve our problems overnight-- they're giving him at least two years.

If the public folds within the first few weeks, you will have been proven right.

Commie is proving that the expectations of Obama are too high. With things as they are, chances are slim that any of Obama's promises will be kept, simply because they can't be kept (not because he doesn't desire them not to be kept).

Troops movement isn't going to change much. He'll lessen the troop level to 30,000 (about the amount in Afganistan), and then increase levels in Afganistan to Iraq levels. In the eyes of the troops and thier families, not much difference.

Health care isn't going to get handled or even touched upon in four years, it might get a half-arsed batting around, but no real progress towards anything.

Obama won't do anything for the economy, because it really has no bearing on the president (other than for him to calm the masses). It will return, because that is what the economy would do regardless.

He'll close the Cuban jail, but will transfer the inmates to another country (not our own), so in essence nothing will have changed except location.

Alot of the Amercan population will either be dismayed (but that's not saying much as everyone always thinks "I could do it better") while a few starry-eyed followers (like Commie) will defend everything he does as acceptable.

In a nutshell, not much change will take place.

EdelBrock wrote: Commie is proving that the expectations of Obama are too high. With things as they are, chances are slim that any of Obama's promises will be kept, simply because they can't be kept (not because he doesn't desire them not to be kept).

If expectations were "too high," then the public, Commie included, would be saying we expect Obama to solve all of this country's problems immediately, as Cambo argues. Instead, the polls show both extraordinarily high ratings for Obama, and extraordinary patience in expecting results. Most Americans, as indicated by the polls, know that it's going to take time to solve our problems. I would hardly characterize that as "too high expectations."

EdelBrock wrote: Troops movement isn't going to change much. He'll lessen the troop level to 30,000 (about the amount in Afganistan), and then increase levels in Afganistan to Iraq levels. In the eyes of the troops and thier families, not much difference.

Perhaps. But the fact is, we got sidetracked from our mission of hunting down and destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda with a pointless invasion of Iraq. Shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan gets us back on track to hunting down and destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

EdelBrock wrote: Health care isn't going to get handled or even touched upon in four years, it might get a half-arsed batting around, but no real progress towards anything.

Obama has appointed a White House health care czar, who is also his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Health Care Czar position is new, created by Obama, and signifies that he does intend to address the health care crisis during his first term. The fact that he's also realistic about how long it will take to pass health care legislation given the current economic and fiscal realities doesn't mean that it won't be dealt with. If anything, the fact that people are losing their access to health care as this economy sheds jobs will act as a stimulus to pass health care legislation.

EdelBrock wrote: Obama won't do anything for the economy, because it really has no bearing on the president (other than for him to calm the masses). It will return, because that is what the economy would do regardless.

Well, first, I think you meant that the President has no bearing on the economy (rather than "the economy has no bearing on the President.).

And that, of course, is just plain wrong. Government spending stimulates the economy, and Obama proposes a massive spending program on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects. It's up to Congress to pass legislation, but is there any doubt that Congress will pass an economic stimulus act, or that Obama will sign the act? The only worrisome criticism out there is that Obama is being too conservative, proposing to spend about a third of what is actually needed to quickly turn the economy around. He is aware that it's less than recommended, but he's trying to balance the economic stimulus against the negative affects of a ballooning federal deficit.

EdelBrock wrote: He'll close the Cuban jail, but will transfer the inmates to another country (not our own), so in essence nothing will have changed except location.

The issues with Gitmo are (1) torture of detainees, and (2) lack of due process for detainees. Transferring the detainees to another country does not address either of those issues; it's just a mass "extraordinary rendition," and I seriously doubt Obama is going to increase the scale of the Bush legal abuses through a mass extraordinary rendition. I think it's far more likely that (1) torture of detainees will cease, and (2) detainees will either be put on trial, or be released.

But who knows? Only time will tell.

EdelBrock wrote: Alot of the Amercan population will either be dismayed (but that's not saying much as everyone always thinks "I could do it better") while a few starry-eyed followers (like Commie) will defend everything he does as acceptable.

In a nutshell, not much change will take place.

Strry yd? M i?

EdelBrock wrote: I don't remember being pro-Sakozy, rather I was happy for the change and getting rid of Chirac. It seemed that Sarkozy was a better direction then him.

*note* that European conservatives are not equal and a quite opposite to American conservatives.

If I was a psychiatrist, I would say something like « good, Mr. Pontiac, we have done a good job”.

I remember you were pro-Sarkozy. But, more important than that, you remember you were against Chirac.

That sums up everything, at least, what we think about a large portion of your fellow citizens : you do not know your vassals. The only politicians you know are the ones who belong the “axis of evil”.

A little word about French politics : Sarkozy, UMP party, is the illegitimate heir of Chirac, UMP party. You got it? Sarkozy and Chirac belong to the same political party. The only reason why you know Chirac is that you never forgave him that he did not want to commit in Iraq on false allegations. By that time, let me remind you that French troops were already in Afghanistan, “restoring freedom (or hope)”, that is getting rid of the Talibans you had been sponsoring during the Soviet Afghani war... I was and still am an anti-Sarkozy. You think he is pro-American? He is just more pro-American than Chirac, despite all you can think of the latter.

A little word about British politics : Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the UK. He had been the main instrument of the American propaganda in the European Union with his lies about Weapons of Massive Destruction. I find it odd, taking in account that you fought alongside reliable soldiers of Her Majesty the Queen of England in Iraq that you do not know who Blair is. Blair was from the Labour party, and I will let the UK and NI noolers explain what he did to their counrty.

9.8/10 Jiphy.

You lose 0.2 for "UK and NI", it's a bit like saying "France and Corsica". ;) But you only lose 0.2 instead of more, because we're not allowed to vote.

The Labour party used to be....... Pro Union Pro Welfare state Pro nationalised industry Pro government investment Pro tax-and-spend.

Now they've abandoned all of that, and indeed there IS no viable UK party who retain such policies. Essentially the differences between the two main parties is the colour of their logos.

Blair and his contemporary and subsequent cronies are nothing but media studies graduates, advertising their way to an orwellian state.

EDIT: it used to be "tax and spend" now it's "tax and errrrr, well we're not sure where the money is actually, but we definitely didn't spend it all charging round the world making dicks of ourselves on behalf of Shrub, no, certainly not".

EdelBrock wrote:

One thing that is disturbing to me is all the hoopla people make about it being a "historic" event. Granted it might be, but it doen't warrant all this coverage that just drags on and on about this point. I mean not one person can just say "inaugeration" everyone HAS to say "historic" before it.

You don't get it? It's a black man's inauguration!!!! There've never been black Presidents before and blacks have never ruled predominantly white-populated countries (with the exception of Canadian prime minister Jeanne Michaela, who is black).

Hence we get "historic" additive.

Jiphy, I know who Blair is, but I don't have any deep understanding of him. All I know are the side comments in news reports and those that speak of him in passing. I know nothing of his actual stance on policies, other than backing the war in Iraq, which quite honestly isn't enough to know someone's stance on politics. I have no idea what he has done for/against Britian as a whole (other than, again, Iraq).

Martin made a comment that I thought was intruiging and I was curious on what its full implications were.

And for the record, I don't care that Chirac didn't back invading Iraq... that's not what bothers me. It was his dealings going outside, against and behind UN sanctions and policies... he didn't have a moral calling for not entering Iraq, it was to save his own skin. His "moral stance" was a crock.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

One thing that is disturbing to me is all the hoopla people make about it being a "historic" event. Granted it might be, but it doen't warrant all this coverage that just drags on and on about this point. I mean not one person can just say "inaugeration" everyone HAS to say "historic" before it.

You don't get it? It's a black man's inauguration!!!! There've never been black Presidents before and blacks have never ruled predominantly white-populated countries (with the exception of Canadian prime minister Jeanne Michaela, who is black).

Hence we get "historic" additive.

Wow, thanks for that nugget of wisdom Captian Obvious

EdelBrock wrote: And for the record, I don't care that Chirac didn't back invading Iraq... that's not what bothers me. It was his dealings going outside, against and behind UN sanctions and policies... he didn't have a moral calling for not entering Iraq, it was to save his own skin. His "moral stance" was a crock.

Come on... Our countries have a permanent seat at the UN. Everybody does the same... China, Russia, UK, France and... the USA...

Despite that, two weights, two measures...

France against war in Iraq and war in Iraq is. USA against cease-fire in Gaza and ssh when Israeli fire kills UN doctors...

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: And for the record, I don't care that Chirac didn't back invading Iraq... that's not what bothers me. It was his dealings going outside, against and behind UN sanctions and policies... he didn't have a moral calling for not entering Iraq, it was to save his own skin. His "moral stance" was a crock.

Come on... Our countries have a permanent seat at the UN. Everybody does the same... China, Russia, UK, France and... the USA...

Despite that, two weights, two measures...

France against war in Iraq and war in Iraq is. USA against cease-fire in Gaza and ssh when Israeli fire kills UN doctors...

China and Russia are not "permanent" seats inthe UN, they are always threatening on leaving because thier self interests conflict with UN mandates.

The US did do it to some extent with Iraq, but it was striaght forward and blatant, whereas Chirac acted like he backed UN mandates but underhandedly went against them for national gain.

France was only against the war, because thier money (exports) was tied were tied to it and didn't want the UN to find out about it, not because they were morally against it.

Never heard anywhere that the US was against a cease fire in Gaza... now yer just making things up.

EdelBrock wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: And for the record, I don't care that Chirac didn't back invading Iraq... that's not what bothers me. It was his dealings going outside, against and behind UN sanctions and policies... he didn't have a moral calling for not entering Iraq, it was to save his own skin. His "moral stance" was a crock.

Come on... Our countries have a permanent seat at the UN. Everybody does the same... China, Russia, UK, France and... the USA...

Despite that, two weights, two measures...

France against war in Iraq and war in Iraq is. USA against cease-fire in Gaza and ssh when Israeli fire kills UN doctors...

China and Russia are not "permanent" seats inthe UN, they are always threatening on leaving because thier self interests conflict with UN mandates.

The US did do it to some extent with Iraq, but it was striaght forward and blatant, whereas Chirac acted like he backed UN mandates but underhandedly went against them for national gain.

France was only against the war, because thier money (exports) was tied were tied to it and didn't want the UN to find out about it, not because they were morally against it.

Never heard anywhere that the US was against a cease fire in Gaza... now yer just making things up.

Actually, as much as I dislike the French (Jiffy excluded), as is par the course for yer average Brit, I begrudgingly admire their stance re: Iraq, and am a little bit embarrassed as i suspect many of us Brits are, that our government didnt have the moral fortitude to not follow the dollar.

EdelBrock wrote: China and Russia are not "permanent" seats in the UN...

Care to rethink that?

It must be a Republican thing. Gerald Ford claimed that

"there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." He added that he did not "believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union," and made the same claim with regards to Yugoslavia and Romania.[5] Ford compounded his error by refusing to retract his statement for almost a week after the debate.

Must come from being able to see Russia from their front yards.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, we got the first hip-hopper in da house. He'll prorably party away all these 4 years and leave the White House completely unrestorable, with Puff Daddy carpets and discoballs permanently mounted in the bathrooms.

good stuff ian

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: China and Russia are not "permanent" seats in the UN...

Care to rethink that?

thus why I put it in quotations. Good lord, does anyone on this forum read or what? I'm begining to think people only read what they want and adlib the rest. Fecking 'ell.

Both China and Russia have permanent seats because we want them to THINK like us and be a PART of us. They, themselves, aren't there to be permanent members, but only members as long as it benefits them... they are willing to leave at the slightest notice. So in paper, yes they have permanent seats, but in reality they aren't "in it for the win" so to speak...

Burt Reynolds wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: And for the record, I don't care that Chirac didn't back invading Iraq... that's not what bothers me. It was his dealings going outside, against and behind UN sanctions and policies... he didn't have a moral calling for not entering Iraq, it was to save his own skin. His "moral stance" was a crock.

Come on... Our countries have a permanent seat at the UN. Everybody does the same... China, Russia, UK, France and... the USA...

Despite that, two weights, two measures...

France against war in Iraq and war in Iraq is. USA against cease-fire in Gaza and ssh when Israeli fire kills UN doctors...

China and Russia are not "permanent" seats inthe UN, they are always threatening on leaving because thier self interests conflict with UN mandates.

The US did do it to some extent with Iraq, but it was striaght forward and blatant, whereas Chirac acted like he backed UN mandates but underhandedly went against them for national gain.

France was only against the war, because thier money (exports) was tied were tied to it and didn't want the UN to find out about it, not because they were morally against it.

Never heard anywhere that the US was against a cease fire in Gaza... now yer just making things up.

Actually, as much as I dislike the French (Jiffy excluded), as is par the course for yer average Brit, I begrudgingly admire their stance re: Iraq, and am a little bit embarrassed as i suspect many of us Brits are, that our government didnt have the moral fortitude to not follow the dollar.

Yeah, because France wasn't following the almighty dollar, they followed thier bleeding hearts....

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: China and Russia are not "permanent" seats in the UN...

Care to rethink that?

thus why I put it in quotations. Good lord, does anyone on this forum read or what? I'm begining to think people only read what they want and adlib the rest. Fecking 'ell.

Both China and Russia have permanent seats because we want them to THINK like us and be a PART of us. They, themselves, aren't there to be permanent members, but only members as long as it benefits them... they are willing to leave at the slightest notice. So in paper, yes they have permanent seats, but in reality they aren't "in it for the win" so to speak...

Utter nonsense. Why do you insist on expounding at length on subjects you know nothing about? Do you have any understanding at all of why and how the U.N. was formed, or how the 5 permanent members of the security council got those seats? You speak as if U.N. membership is by U.S. invitation, and continues at our pleasure. For that matter, you also speak as if we aren't there to assert our own interests.

And that part about China and Russia being ready to leave at the slightest notice? Obviously fabricated out of thin air, because there's no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. "Fecking 'ell" indeed.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: China and Russia are not "permanent" seats in the UN...

Care to rethink that?

thus why I put it in quotations. Good lord, does anyone on this forum read or what? I'm begining to think people only read what they want and adlib the rest. Fecking 'ell.

Both China and Russia have permanent seats because we want them to THINK like us and be a PART of us. They, themselves, aren't there to be permanent members, but only members as long as it benefits them... they are willing to leave at the slightest notice. So in paper, yes they have permanent seats, but in reality they aren't "in it for the win" so to speak...

Utter nonsense. Why do you insist on expounding at length on subjects you know nothing about? Do you have any understanding at all of why and how the U.N. was formed, or how the 5 permanent members of the security council got those seats? You speak as if U.N. membership is by U.S. invitation, and continues at our pleasure. For that matter, you also speak as if we aren't there to assert our own interests.

And that part about China and Russia being ready to leave at the slightest notice? Obviously fabricated out of thin air, because there's no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. "Fecking 'ell" indeed.

God do I need to spell absolutely everything out? "us" means Western ideology, that would include Britian, France, Italy, etc. ect. ect. China and Russia are mainly included under the philosophy, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" and "maybe if we get them working with us the more likely they will start acting like us and we'll all be one big happy family".

but of course, we could just ignore the big elephant in the room I suppose...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: China and Russia are not "permanent" seats in the UN...

Care to rethink that?

thus why I put it in quotations. Good lord, does anyone on this forum read or what? I'm begining to think people only read what they want and adlib the rest. Fecking 'ell.

Both China and Russia have permanent seats because we want them to THINK like us and be a PART of us. They, themselves, aren't there to be permanent members, but only members as long as it benefits them... they are willing to leave at the slightest notice. So in paper, yes they have permanent seats, but in reality they aren't "in it for the win" so to speak...

Utter nonsense. Why do you insist on expounding at length on subjects you know nothing about? Do you have any understanding at all of why and how the U.N. was formed, or how the 5 permanent members of the security council got those seats? You speak as if U.N. membership is by U.S. invitation, and continues at our pleasure. For that matter, you also speak as if we aren't there to assert our own interests.

And that part about China and Russia being ready to leave at the slightest notice? Obviously fabricated out of thin air, because there's no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. "Fecking 'ell" indeed.

God do I need to spell absolutely everything out? "us" means Western ideology, that would include Britian, France, Italy, etc. ect. ect. China and Russia are mainly included under the philosophy, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" and "maybe if we get them working with us the more likely they will start acting like us and we'll all be one big happy family".

but of course, we could just ignore the big elephant in the room I suppose...

Um... sorry to intervene... But just cannot help pointing that the UN was launched at the break of the Cold War and it was used best during the Cold War, when there wasn't such a thing as "Western ideology" in politics, quite quite contrary :)

Furthermore, it's a good tool for influence or just blackmailing, pressuring,, so why would China and Russia leave such a comfortable place??

UK and US have pissed on MANY a UN ruling, many a treaty, many an agreement.Are either of them even signatories of the Geneva Convention? (I hope not, because if they are, they are worse cunts than even I previously expected...you know, little things like the Brits selling anti-small-child mines to any crazy african cunt who asks (and underwriting the order too, so the UK tax payer picks up the bill, but still whines about some crusty getting 85 quid a week), or the country with BY FAR the largest and least well cared for chemical arsenal on Earth..yes good ole "WoMaDs are evillllll" USA).

I really like the French in general, while they produce some UNSPEAKABLE CUNTS, they are also far far smarter with how to progress......they have the TGV, we have fuck all, they comprehend Nuclear power, we cry about it etc etc etc. And as the much hated, often slated Jeremy Clarkson says, they achieve SO much more and have SUCH a better life, all because they have no bunch of unelected imbeciles controlling their every move, but the UK does have the health and safety executive[1], slimy cunts who create their own work...."ooooh I'm a useless spacker with no qualifications in a real subject, I know, I'll make up a stack of retarded and annoying rules that are supposed to protect people, yet only fuck them off for no reason, and VANISH into the mists the moment something really dangerous pops up." BUT THEN, once they've done that, they realise their work is done and they need to get a real job.....so they invent new things for them to ban, control and legislate (imagine an unelected body making legislation!!!!!!! [2] )

Sorry, where was I?

Ahem

Ahhh yes, I don't mind the frogs as a nation at all, the many many French people I've known over the years have either been really REALLY sound....or clinically insane (one of them got deported for flicking her bean on the seafront wall on a busy summer day....I offered to take her under my care, of course, but they weren't having it). The thing is though, almost all the frenchies, when asked "why leave la belle france with her fine food and fine wine and lovely summers to come to this miserable shitehole and eat ulster fries while dodging bomb shrapnell??????" replied "have you MET the rest of the French?????????" Doesn't sound good.

But they have the TGV!!!!!! (worth mentioning twice). And they invented motor racing And they helped us build the seppostomper that is concorde [3],and an airfrance crew being paid to keep one taxiable, are in fact logging enough unpaid hours to keep her airworthy....while BA cut their fleet up, CUNTS! And there's the TGV.

And the next time a yank give a frenchman grief about WWII, they ought to be reminded that. A. the yanks fucked france up far worse than gerry did, and B. there's the small matter of a loan of rather a lot of gold to finance a certain terrorist campaign against the crown in Britain's colonies......what do you suppose the interest on that would be after 200+ years

[1] the wisest words on the HSE EVER came from one of our Jemmy's kinsfolk, Dr F. Dibnah. "the trouble with this country today is, that for every man trying to actually do a job'o'work, there's six blokes standin behind him sayin he can't do owt cos he's not got the right sort of hat on".

[2] yes I know they cannot make new laws without govt. BUT they already have a huge act that's already law, and after the several hundred, largely stupid rules they started with it says..."write yout latest insane scheme here to have it automatically made part of this law".

[3] When the speedbird was in service, the septics made claims like "Concorde destroys the atmosphere" and "SST's kill baby kittens" and so on. Oddly, within 6 months of her politically motivated assassination (can anyone name ONE other plane that was grounded after ONE example crashed???).....every single major US aircraft maker announced an SST project....total and utter SCUM!

EdelBrock wrote: God do I need to spell absolutely everything out? "us" means Western ideology, that would include Britian, France, Italy, etc. ect. ect. China and Russia are mainly included under the philosophy, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" and "maybe if we get them working with us the more likely they will start acting like us and we'll all be one big happy family".

but of course, we could just ignore the big elephant in the room I suppose...

Put the shovel down, Edelbrock, the hole you're in isn't going to get any shallower.

Some random points:

The UN was formed to encourage nations to resolve their differences without resort to war, not to get them to think like us and act like us.

The U.N. Security Council is composed of the allied nations that were World War 2's victors. They aren't on the council because we asked them to be there so that they would think like us, they are there because they were on the winning side.

When the UN was formed, "China" was not the People's Republic of China.

Every nation, including the U.S., is at the UN to advance its own agenda.

There's NO EVIDENCE to support your invented-out-of-thin-air assertion that China and Russia are ready to leave the UN at a moment's notice.

Doctor? wrote: And they invented motor racing

And bicycle racing. Actually, they also invented the bicycle.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: And they invented motor racing

And bicycle racing. Actually, they also invented the bicycle.

And, debatably, America's God...the car!

Edel's on form isn't he?

"China and Russia would bail from the UN in a flash if things didn't go their way" I can think of rather a lot of times the UN went against both countries, and can recall no threats or even noises about leaving. Yet a certain OTHER country has made all sorts of noises about leaving because everyone wouldn't come help them wipe out a load of....what is it the US Army call them?,,,,ah yes, Sand N*s. Also have you seen how the UN is generally portrayed in the US media suddenly? OMG it's like Blair politics....using the media to scare people for months so when the time comes for you to do something truly unspeakable, nobody bats an eyelid.

To answer the original question...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: To answer the original question...

Making the answer "Roundly, Soundly, Completely and Painfully"

I never really knew just how Fvcked you brit's really were until reading this and the majority of the comments.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: .he's moving back to Dallas

As of now...

0_o wrote:

Is that an ad for viagra?

As far as I'm concerned, we got the first hip-hopper in da house. He'll prorably party away all these 4 years and leave the White House completely unrestorable, with Puff Daddy carpets and discoballs permanently mounted in the bathrooms.

People think I'm joking. I'm watching The Insider on CBS, they ask Obama whom he wants to see at his party, he says: JAY-Z, WILL SMITH...

c' mon guys :)

Doctor? wrote: OK, so everyone's happy that the illiterate godtard is out of the whitehouse, that's fair enough.....but have you seen the amount of sheer WORSHIP that's going on over there? FFS even cuntface sang for him!!

SO, in a couple of weeks when it dawns on Jesusland that their ecconomy is still fucked, their troops are still killing and being killed in all sorts of places they've no business being, and that their freedoms are still non-existent under Shrub's laws (which $40 says Obama will leave in place)..........what's gonna happen? Riots? Wild backlash?

Although I tend to subsribe to the "dead quite soon" school....some crazy who actually believes the stuff shrub's spastics were saying about him during the election will kill him. Or just someone who can't comprehend democracy and therefor can't see why there should be a N* in charge of "his" country.

Still at least this one can read the funny black symbols in between the pictures.

You realize, of course, that B. Hussein is also a "g_dtard"?

Indeed, but less so. It'll be centuries before you lot elect a rational man (again?).

Doctor? wrote: Indeed, but less so. It'll be centuries before you lot elect a rational man (again?).

Face it, Doc. We are mostly a nation of "g_dtards". You're stuck with us!! Just think if the King had been able to put down a little tea-tax rebellion.....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Order to close Gitmo given in the first week...

Done.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Order to close Gitmo given in the first week...

Done.

At first I didn't care about this, but last night CNN was showing a quick run through the place... and then I thought, what a waste of taxpayers money to close it down. The facilty is already built. Change the practices, but a well built prison is still useful....

Seems to be more a political decision (showfare), which as usual gives fuck all to the thought on taxpayer dollars.

turn your own volume down asshole

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Order to close Gitmo given in the first week...

Done.

At first I didn't care about this, but last night CNN was showing a quick run through the place... and then I thought, what a waste of taxpayers money to close it down. The facilty is already built. Change the practices, but a well built prison is still useful....

Seems to be more a political decision (showfare), which as usual gives fuck all to the thought on taxpayer dollars.

Funny how the home countries of many of the detainees want nothing to do with them. Why do you think that is??

At a guess, because many of them are Islamic aggitating fuckwits. But I doubt it's that many really, and I was under the impression that what is being proposed is not a pat on the head, a hug and a plane ticket home.....just fair trials and a lack of torture.....wild and extreme stuff like that.

I heard on the news that France was to host some, including non-French ones.

Jiphy wrote: I heard on the news that France was to host some, including non-French ones.

Stick 'em in that place at Calais, it's nice and easy to get in the tunnel from there. That should keep the daily fail readers awake at night.

George W. Bush is an "expert" about terrorists, and he has lots of free time right now.... maybe he should devote himself to take care of his prisoners, put them on his ranch until they are rehabilitated.

Tex wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: the cuban torture facility closed within the week then you think?

Order to close Gitmo given in the first week...

Done.

At first I didn't care about this, but last night CNN was showing a quick run through the place... and then I thought, what a waste of taxpayers money to close it down. The facilty is already built. Change the practices, but a well built prison is still useful....

Seems to be more a political decision (showfare), which as usual gives fuck all to the thought on taxpayer dollars.

Funny how the home countries of many of the detainees want nothing to do with them. Why do you think that is??

Maybe, if we're lucky, the plane will go down when transfering most of these fucktards.

EdelBrock wrote: Maybe, if we're lucky, the plane will go down when transfering most of these fucktards.

Who do you expect to fly the planes?

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Maybe, if we're lucky, the plane will go down when transfering most of these fucktards.

Who do you expect to fly the planes?

Jiphy wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Maybe, if we're lucky, the plane will go down when transfering most of these fucktards.

Who do you expect to fly the planes?

Let 'em figure it out over the ocean after the pilots bail...