www.ditl.org

Oh yeah? I seem to recall saying at the time that you elected the wrong bloke, although I must admit I didn't expect to be quite this right.

We did increase the competency of the White House. Of course, leaving it vacant would have increased the competency. Obama is better than his predecessor, but remember: the surest way to tell if someone is ill-qualified for a public office is by the fact that he wants public office.

Captain Seafort wrote:I hope the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" crowd takes note of who's standing off and launching cruise missiles and who's getting stuck in at considerably closer range.

#1 - If you mean "all Americans," I'll remind you who has a far greater historical animosity toward the French (and who, BTW, is inextricably intertwined with them at the same time.)

#2 - I did take note of that. I'll also remind you that discretion is the better part of valor, and that there's a difference between protecting one's own and giving up.

Mikey wrote:We did increase the competency of the White House...Obama is better than his predecessor,

I've got doubt about that - at least Bush had the basic idea right, even if Rumsfeld royally fucked up the execution. I've yet to see Obama, left to his own devices, do anything but dither.

Captain Seafort wrote:I hope the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" crowd takes note of who's standing off and launching cruise missiles and who's getting stuck in at considerably closer range.

#1 - If you mean "all Americans,"

When I say the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" crowd, I mean exactly that, no more or less.

#2 - I did take note of that. I'll also remind you that discretion is the better part of valor, and that there's a difference between protecting one's own and giving up.

There's also a difference between getting steamrollered (repeatedly) and giving up.

I knew you'd have to come to the defense of the French, no matter any Anglo-Frankish rivalry. There's too much French blood in England. In any event, how exactly does fighting in a safer/smarter way = either giving up or getting steamrolled?

Mikey wrote:I knew you'd have to come to the defense of the French, no matter any Anglo-Frankish rivalry. There's too much French blood in England. In any event, how exactly does fighting in a safer/smarter way = either giving up or getting steamrolled?

I come to the defence of the French to refute the steaming pile of bullshit, largely emanating from the US since 2003, insinuating that their less than impressive military record over recent decades is the result of cowardice, and to point out that a similarly superficial examination of events in Libya thus far would suggest that the French are the ones with the courage and the US are a bunch of cowards. Ergo, this should shut up the crowd who like to describe the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and who have historically tended to be from the US.

Wow. For a guy who claims to like pissing on people, you don't often get it when you see it, do you? You know what? Even though people may say it, the French aren't all cowardly unhygienic assholes; the English aren't all dentally-impaired, dry twits; the Americans aren't all decadent, inbred, megalomaniacal sloths; etc., etc.

The idea of you being unable to see a joke for what it is notwithstanding; please tell me exactly how prosecuting warfare in a smarter or safer way = cowardly, or doing it in a more dangerous way when a better way is available = "more courageous."

Mikey wrote:Wow. For a guy who claims to like pissing on people, you don't often get it when you see it, do you? You know what? Even though people may say it, the French aren't all cowardly unhygienic assholes; the English aren't all dentally-impaired, dry twits; the Americans aren't all decadent, inbred, megalomaniacal sloths; etc., etc.

Congratulations, you've demonstrated that, unlike an alarming number of your countrymen, you've got a positive IQ. Those who don't were the ones I was taking the piss out of.

Also, if you're going to crack jokes by text, it's a good idea to use smilies

The idea of you being unable to see a joke for what it is notwithstanding; please tell me exactly how prosecuting warfare in a smarter or safer way = cowardly, or doing it in a more dangerous way when a better way is available = "more courageous."

Try reading the post again.

I have, unfortunately I've asked the same question three different ways and still haven't gotten an answer.

*UPDATE* Well, it's a moot point anyway, as CBS reported this morning that French, British, and U.S. aircraft were conducting strikes against Libyan airfields and such targets.

Don't we have to...ya no, declare war before we go blow up a country?

USSEnterprise wrote:Don't we have to...ya no, declare war before we go blow up a country?

Nope. Remember Korea?

Tsukiyumi wrote:

USSEnterprise wrote:Don't we have to...ya no, declare war before we go blow up a country?

Nope. Remember Korea?

Or, more appropriately/recently, Vietnam. I'd say this is more like Korea in that it is a UN sanctioned action... (as far as I know)

Three things... just to keep this brief so noone has to ask or assume any stupid ideas.

A, I have never respected the French... ever... don't plan to either.
B, I chalk this to the fact that I'm a racist and as they are a part of the Human race... I hate them.
C, I'm pretty sure a bomb landing on someone's head is just as clear a notice of war as a signed sheet of paper.

Just my thoughts to it.

Since the French and Italians rarely get involved with anything the UN sanctions, I think its pretty clear they want him gone.

USSEnterprise wrote:Don't we have to...ya no, declare war before we go blow up a country?

Nope. The only difference is that if we blow up a country without a declaration of war, it will have been done during peacetime.