@Xi:
Meanwhile, back at the chateau, France has sent military forces to Cote de Ivorie, unilaterally,without seeking nor obtaining UN sanctions or approval. Hypocrites!
–-------------------------------------------------
“No War for Oil.” - Le Motto Nationale de France :roll:
While in the Cote de Ivorie they saved the lives of many people, children included, in the face of non-government sanctioned terrorists. Many Canadians. (Just 'cuz their French doesn’t mean that they are ALL a**holes . . . ;))
Yanny, you are basing your belief on the idea that the British could have won without occupying much of the colonies and that they could have handled losing 60-70+ thousand troops (for edxample, they lost 9,000 at Saratoga, and 2,000 at Cowpens). For Every British Victory they lost 500-1,000 men. How could they have kept that up for 8, 9 10, 11 years?
First off, some figures (From the book Liberty, The American Revolution)
Captured:
Yorktown - 7157 soldiers
Saratoga - Burgoyne set out from Canada with 7,586 men, over 3000 of whom were left behind to guard various posts (like Ticonderoga), and were able to retreat to Canada. This left roughly 5,000 (edit - this includes Indian guides and friendly militia) in his main army. About 1,000 were killed, and the rest captured. When they were captured, they were sent back to England with an agreement never to set foot in America again. They simply replaced troops in Ireland or England.
Cowpens - The British suffered only 532 casualties.
Now, Yorktown would not of been possible without the French. In addition, the French gave the Americans huge sums of hard money. Without this money, Washington would of been unable to pay his army. Even with the hard money, a Mutiny would spring up almost every month. Without the French giving us the money, in addition to cannon and ammunition, the Continental army would of ceased to exist.
@cystic:
[While in the Coti d’Ivoire they saved the lives of many people, children included, in the face of non-government sanctioned terrorists. Many Canadians. (Just 'cuz their French doesn’t mean that they are ALL a**holes . . . ;))[/quote]
Is this “the old ‘say the US is going to kill 28,000,000 Iraqis ploy without saying it’”?
Potty mouth …
I know a coupla Europeans that ain’t too bad.
No pun intended.
Yanny, those prisoners were never sent back to England (during the war), making the rest of your figures questionable.
Most were, however Congress stepped in and stopped many of them (officers for the most part) from leaving for England. They waited out the war in some rather unpleasant New Jersey jails for years.
Just heard that a German court convicted an Arab Muslim of complicity in 3088 deaths of the WTC. He was sentences to 15 years. That works out to about 1.77 days per MURDER!
WHOOP DEE DO!
I ain’t got any good thoughts re: Germany right now.
Beepin’ BEEPS!
[Irony]Isn’t that harsh![Irony]
@Xi:
Just heard that a German court convicted an Arab Muslim of complicity in 3088 deaths of the WTC. He was sentences to 15 years. They said that works out to about 1.78 days per MURDER!
I ain’t got any good thoughts re: Germany right now.
Beepin’ BEEPS!
“They say”… i know you claim not to like maths, but that is an easy one to check…
plus: yes, we stick to our laws, even when dealing with terrorists. If Democracy wants to prove stronger than them, it is not allowed to reduce itself to their means. He got the strongest possible verdict.
plus: the US agencies refused to give the details of the interrogation of Binsh… (what was his name) to the german authorities. Why not?
Because of this (not having all evidence) there probably will be a new trial at the next higher instance to roll up the whole thing again.
Oh yes, and he was convicted also to membership of a terrorists organization.
Just heard that a German court convicted an Arab Muslim of complicity in 3088 deaths of the WTC. He was sentences to 15 years. They said that works out to about 1.78 days per MURDER!
I ain’t got any good thoughts re: Germany right now.
Beepin’ BEEPS!
Keep in mind, they gave him the max jail time possible for the charge.
Germany creates a Muslim hero! When he walks out they’ll celebrate.
Almost everything we (including you) print here is ‘he said’ or ‘she wrote!’
So what’s this about a theme park being built in eastern Germany with a portion of the old East Germany being replicated! Including nasty guards at checkpoints and such.
:roll:
… and now we hear that the EU is having trouble coming to agreeance (thank the recent awards ceremony idiots for the creation of a new word.) Some countries want to include mention of God in the EU Constitution … and some countries don’t want religion brought into it … while others want no mention of a nonexistant or unproven entity (wouldn’t that preclude the existance of the EU?)
@Xi:
Yeah, and thusly, Germany creates a Muslim hero!
Just a second, so you think the penalty was too harsh… and we should have set him free? Maybe we created a hero, but we didn’t create a martyr (sp?)
Almost everything we (and that includes YOU)
print here is 'he said ’ or ‘she wrote!’
I was referring to the maths…. you caould have checked the 1.78 and then the “they said” would have been needless, because it then would be like that regardless what they say.
@Xi:
So what’s this about a theme park being built in eastern Germany with a portion of the old East Germany being replicated! Including nasty guards at checkpoints and such.
Rumours and gossip. I have never heard of anything like that.
@Xi:
… and now we hear that the EU is having trouble coming to agreeance. Some countries want to include mention of God in the EU Constitution … and some countries don’t want religion brought into it … while others want no mention of a nonexistant or unproven entity (wouldn’t that preclude the existance of the EU?)
It’s about a constitution for the EU, and there are more points where the people discuss than this one mentioning of god or a higher being. Alone for the first 16 articles there have been more than 1000 wishes to change them (in some words most of them, some in spirit: the germans want the notion of “a union growing together” which the British do not want at all…. at times i think the EU would do much better without that island).
The “god”-discussion is not so much a point of public interest over here, and i have not heard about the last line of arguments with the unproven entity.
NO! I think the punishment was TOO LITTLE. (3000+ died!)
Can you explain why the British do not
want “a nation growing together?”
Nevermind! I understand …
How about “a union growing together?”
Or is that to close to the Union of Soviet … ?
It allows for nations within the union.
@Xi:
NO! I think the punishment was TOO LITTLE. (3000+ died!)
Can you explain why the British do not
want “a nation growing together?”
Nevermind! I understand …
How about “a union growing together?”
Or is that to close to the Union of Soviet … ?
It allows for nations within the union.
@F_alk:
some in spirit: the germans want the notion of “a union growing together” which the British do not want at all….
Well, have alook again at what i wrote. It was a bout a union and not a nation growing together.
If you think the punishment was too little, and complain about creating a mulslim hero…. what are the alternatives: reduce the punishment, and let the fundamentals win a “legal” victory, or kill him and create a martyr??
For the term Union … it is in European Union as it was in the Soviet Union as it was in Union and Confederation… So, i don’T think that anybody has any objections against that term or would have left the EU already.
Sorry, F_alk! My goof. :oops:
:lol:
Check out (the picture @ bottom left of page.)
http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml
TODAY!
lol … quite funny ;)
@Y_ny:
Yes, we won the war … in part because of the courage and sacrifice of great people. But without the French, we would never of come close to winning.
Ulterior motives?
@Oz__:
I think referring to the French or Germans as wimps for being “afraid” to attack Iraq is shortsighted.
I agree.
