View Poll Results: Roman Polanski and your perception of France

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • I can't believe France is protecting a child raper

    14 51.85%
  • The French are absolutely correct to do what they're doing.

    4 14.81%
  • It's wrong, but hey... cest la vie

    6 22.22%
  • A little rape never harmed anyone.

    3 11.11%
Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 220

Thread: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

  1. #191
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
    It doesn't effect my view of the French at all. We protect our fair share of monsters by refusing to extradite them. Many disgusting creatures have fled justice because of us, from genocidal nazis, to murderous dictators like Sánchez de Lozada. Holding refusal of extradition against France would be pretty damn hypocritical.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    Here is an entire list of Vietnam War battles that the Americans lost:

    Lost Battles of the Vietnam War

    I hear this myth bouncing around a lot, that American soldiers never lost a battle, as if they're somehow invincible, despite more than 50,000 of them dying in that country. I think it propagates the myth that America's 'hands were tied' in that war, and they wouldn't have lost if only for those damn hippies and politicians holding them back.

    That's ridiculous. For the better part of a decade, the US was trying its absolute hardest to bring North Vietnam to its knees -- and along the way, they, like every other nation, lost plenty of battles. It's only to be expected: They were fighting a well-organized and well-equipped enemy that was being supplied by the (then) arguably most powerful nation in the world.

    I think it's a dishonor and a disservice to those military men who died there, to claim that they were hamstrung by their own politicians. They were fighting huge, pitched battles and they died by the thousands, in a brutal war that saw a superpower beaten both politically and militarily. It is morally reprehensible to try to whitewash Vietnam by changing the facts to fit your ridiculous agenda.
    Just about all that were listed where NVA actually did win a firefight were ARVAN. Because there were a few American advisor's present doesn't mean they were American troops.

    The author seems not to know the difference between a fire fight and a battle which during the Vietnam War were referred to as "operations."
    The article is nothing more than leftist revisionism.

    (The definition of "operations" differed from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines. I wont get into the difference between the two.)

    Being over run doesn't mean you were defeated, it meant it got down out dirty and personal, hand to hand combat. Usually fixing bayonets in which Obama claims hasn't happened in a hundred years.

    NVA or VC attacking an American air base or fire base and then running away isn't considered to be winning a battle.

    Even when "Special Forces" (Green Beret) camps were over run, unless the enemy occupied the camp and held the ground, they didn't win.

    BTW: Special Forces camps were not U.S. military. they were South Vietnamese who had American advisor's.

    I'm very familiar with Marble Mountain. It was never occupied by the VC.
    >"12. Attack on Marble Mountain - Some 90 Viet Cong sappers infiltrated this huge Marine Corps airfield and destroyed 19 helicopters and damaged 35 (11 of them severely). After this 30 minute rampage, the Viet Cong withdrew, leaving behind 17 dead and 4 wounded. American casualties were 3 killed and 91 wounded."<
    It seems the VC fled not the Marines.

    The DaNang air base just west of Marble Mountain was attacked almost every night.


    This one is an eye opener. I was there and I didn't know we were defeated. I must be one of the walking dead. I'm a real live zombie.

    >" 40. Battle of No Goi Island - The Viet Cong liked to fortify ambush sites and wait for the Americans to discover them. During Operation Allen Brook, three battalions of Marines swept through No Goi Island and found lots of Viet Cong ready to fight from bunkers near the village of Le Bac. During several days of bloody assaults, the Marines suffered 138 killed and 686 wounded (576 seriously) before the surviving Viet Cong fled. The extreme heat resulted in another 283 Marines evacuated due to heat stroke. Having suffered 50% causalities, Allen Brook was halted until fresh Marine units arrived."<

    During the Battle of the Bulge during WW ll there were many U.S. Army units that were completely wiped out, thousands of soldiers who were captured. Who won the battle ?

    If we are to use the authors examples of aircraft shot down, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a victory for the USA.

    Just another example of revisionism.

  3. #193
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Just about all that were listed where NVA actually did win a firefight were ARVAN. Because there were a few American advisor's present doesn't mean they were American troops.

    The author seems not to know the difference between a fire fight and a battle which during the Vietnam War were referred to as "operations."
    The article is nothing more than leftist revisionism.

    (The definition of "operations" differed from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines. I wont get into the difference between the two.)

    Being over run doesn't mean you were defeated, it meant it got down out dirty and personal, hand to hand combat. Usually fixing bayonets in which Obama claims hasn't happened in a hundred years.

    NVA or VC attacking an American air base or fire base and then running away isn't considered to be winning a battle.

    Even when "Special Forces" (Green Beret) camps were over run, unless the enemy occupied the camp and held the ground, they didn't win.

    BTW: Special Forces camps were not U.S. military. they were South Vietnamese who had American advisor's.

    I'm very familiar with Marble Mountain. It was never occupied by the VC.
    >"12. Attack on Marble Mountain - Some 90 Viet Cong sappers infiltrated this huge Marine Corps airfield and destroyed 19 helicopters and damaged 35 (11 of them severely). After this 30 minute rampage, the Viet Cong withdrew, leaving behind 17 dead and 4 wounded. American casualties were 3 killed and 91 wounded."<
    It seems the VC fled not the Marines.

    The DaNang air base just west of Marble Mountain was attacked almost every night.


    This one is an eye opener. I was there and I didn't know we were defeated. I must be one of the walking dead. I'm a real live zombie.

    >" 40. Battle of No Goi Island - The Viet Cong liked to fortify ambush sites and wait for the Americans to discover them. During Operation Allen Brook, three battalions of Marines swept through No Goi Island and found lots of Viet Cong ready to fight from bunkers near the village of Le Bac. During several days of bloody assaults, the Marines suffered 138 killed and 686 wounded (576 seriously) before the surviving Viet Cong fled. The extreme heat resulted in another 283 Marines evacuated due to heat stroke. Having suffered 50% causalities, Allen Brook was halted until fresh Marine units arrived."<

    During the Battle of the Bulge during WW ll there were many U.S. Army units that were completely wiped out, thousands of soldiers who were captured. Who won the battle ?

    If we are to use the authors examples of aircraft shot down, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a victory for the USA.

    Just another example of revisionism.
    I can not believe how hard you are trying to convince yourself that the US didn't lose a battle. They did, it is historical fact, and I don't see what the big deal is -- every nation loses battles, every nation loses wars, yours included.

    Despite giving you a list of over 70 lost battles, you are trying to claim on vague technicalities that these don't 'count', when it appears to me the greater picture is abundantly clear: The US suffered more than 360,000 casualties in a defining war for your country. The war ended when US troops pulled out, after a long slog with no real gains, and within months of the US troops leaving, South Vietnam fell.

    This was a loss. More than that, it was a defining moment for your country. I don't understand why you are trying to take that away -- what do you gain if you convince yourself that American soldiers never lost a battle? Your claim makes them no more invincible. Your claim does not make your generals any less able to ****-up.

    You also clearly have no idea how a battle is won or lost -- yes, soldiers die on both sides. Gains and losses are made on both sides -- it wouldn't be a battle otherwise, only a massacre! At the end of the day, these 70 battles are examples where several things occurred: Either the US troops failed to accomplish their objective due to enemy resistance, or their attrition rate was too great, too many of them were dying or being wounded that they had to evacuate, or they failed to successfully repel or stymie an enemy advance. These things happened. Vietnam wouldn't be a place of nightmares for US troops if it were somehow a cakewalk!

    Have you not heard of Hamburger Hill? Or the Battle of the Slopes? Or any of the other American defeats in Vietnam?

    I am incredulous that you would accuse ME of historical revisionism. Why do you believe this nonsense? What purpose does it serve?

  4. #194
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,634

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Carjosse View Post
    We do not the support the death sentence, we do not support eye for an eye.
    The funny thing is that the guillotine was outlawed in France in 1981, years after allowing Polanski asylum, and Polanski wasn't even up for the death penalty in the US, so your moral outrage is stupid twice over.

    Also, the sentence was not to have Polanski drugged and sodomized, so not sure where the eye for an eye comes from. We treat our criminals better than they treated their victims.

    I guess the only real conclusion is that the French government supports the anal rape of children so long as the rapist makes artsy movies they can vote up at Cannes.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  5. #195
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,634

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    Refusing extradition doesn't mean condoning the crime. It doesn't follow.
    Of course it does.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  6. #196
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,634

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    If letting this matter die is what will bring her peace then that's what America owes her.

    That is fine, but the punishment isn't all about the victim. A mother may find it in her heart to forgive the man who murdered her son, but the murderer still goes to jail.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 11-29-13 at 11:11 AM.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    Have you not heard of Hamburger Hill? Or the Battle of the Slopes? Or any of the other American defeats in Vietnam?

    I am incredulous that you would accuse ME of historical revisionism. Why do you believe this nonsense? What purpose does it serve?
    If Hamburger Hill was an American defeat, explain how the NVA were defeated and abandoned their position and the hill ended up being occupied by American soldiers ?

    Your article mentioned that when the VC attacked the Marine air base at Marble Mountain and the Marines were defeated doesn't explain why I was able to fly out of Marble Mountain a half of a dozen times when I was in-country. I can assure you those weren't Charley's helicopters.

    You and your revisionist don't know the definition of a "battle." There are fire fights and there are battles.

    A battle is an engagement of two or more seizable forces conducted with in a defined geographic area and time limits. Before the twentieth century battles rarely exceeded beyond 100 square miles and with in a few days. But today a battle can take place within over a thousand or more square miles and a duration from weeks or even months.

    During a battle numerous if not hundreds of fire fights take place. If one side is defeated in a fire fight, the battle isn't lost.

    Your revisionist author definition of battles and defeat would mean that the U.S. Marines were defeated on Tarawa and Iwo Jima, the Japanese were defeated on Wake Island and on Dec. 7th, 1941 at Pearl Harbor and the Germans won the battle for Stalingrad and the Allies lost the Battle of the Atlantic.

    When the last American combat troops left the RVN in 1973 the NVA and VC didn't control one single Provence in all of the RVN. All were in control of ARVAN troops when that last freedom birds took off from DaNang and Tan Son Nhut Air Base.

    Some times a battle is confused with a campaign, two different things. A campaign could be one battle or dozens of battles. It could take place with in a week or last as long as a couple of years. But there's a definition for what a campaigned is just as there is for a battle.

  8. #198
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    If Hamburger Hill was an American defeat, explain how the NVA were defeated and abandoned their position and the hill ended up being occupied by American soldiers ?

    Your article mentioned that when the VC attacked the Marine air base at Marble Mountain and the Marines were defeated doesn't explain why I was able to fly out of Marble Mountain a half of a dozen times when I was in-country. I can assure you those weren't Charley's helicopters.

    You and your revisionist don't know the definition of a "battle." There are fire fights and there are battles.

    A battle is an engagement of two or more seizable forces conducted with in a defined geographic area and time limits. Before the twentieth century battles rarely exceeded beyond 100 square miles and with in a few days. But today a battle can take place within over a thousand or more square miles and a duration from weeks or even months.

    During a battle numerous if not hundreds of fire fights take place. If one side is defeated in a fire fight, the battle isn't lost.

    Your revisionist author definition of battles and defeat would mean that the U.S. Marines were defeated on Tarawa and Iwo Jima, the Japanese were defeated on Wake Island and on Dec. 7th, 1941 at Pearl Harbor and the Germans won the battle for Stalingrad and the Allies lost the Battle of the Atlantic.

    When the last American combat troops left the RVN in 1973 the NVA and VC didn't control one single Provence in all of the RVN. All were in control of ARVAN troops when that last freedom birds took off from DaNang and Tan Son Nhut Air Base.

    Some times a battle is confused with a campaign, two different things. A campaign could be one battle or dozens of battles. It could take place with in a week or last as long as a couple of years. But there's a definition for what a campaigned is just as there is for a battle.

    You failed to answer my other charges, but it doesn't matter.

    I just want to know a couple things:

    Are you claiming that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam?

    If so, what do you think that says about the US?

  9. #199
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

    He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

    After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

    To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

    The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

    How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
    Perhaps we should offer our convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters and option of being deported to France in lieu of serving a prison sentence or being put to death. If France has such a soft spot for Mr. Polanski and others like him, then I say let them have these worst of our criminals.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #200
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

    Quote Originally Posted by Carjosse View Post
    It means France is sticking to their values, Canada and other the civilized countries in the world would do the same.
    Most people do not think that harboring and protecting child rapists is the mark of a civilized country.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •