French Warfare History

[Manitou]

We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

Let us take a look at French warfighting history... do we really care if they are "on board"?

Gaellic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all people, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly Lost. Saved at the last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates "The First Rule of French Warfare": France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. (Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huegenots.)

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchman take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied.

War of Augsberg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded French supporters the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of Spanish Succession - Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the "Second Rule of French Warfare": France only wins when America does most of the fighting.

French Revolution - Won. This was primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French (who lost).

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (brought about by the application of the "First Rule of French Warfare") due to the leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer. (The French troops probably got distracted by wanting to try on the fancy shoes.)

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany plays the role of "the drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night".

World War I - Tied. Were on the way to losing; France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what its like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein". Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French Forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the "First Rule of Muslim Warfare": We can always beat the French.
This rule is identical to the "First Rules" of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he runs into a McDonald's.

:D

[BLuE_ZeRO]

French Revolution - Won. This was primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French (who lost).

I just about died when I saw that. :rofl: :lol:

[mistled]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

my favorite .... "France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway."

[Sputty]

:rofl: That's hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle

[Hamma]

:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

[Unregistered]

Time for me to post the French Answer to "America's Army" the game?

[mistled]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Time for me to post the French Answer to "America's Army" the game? :confused:

[Unregistered]

French Army to Market 'Ultimate Surrender' Video Game

http://rightwingnews.com/ultimatesurrender.jpg
http://rightwingnews.com/frenchscreenshot.jpg

Paris - Inspired by the commercial success of the United States Army�s "Boot Camp" video game, the General Staff of the French Army has announced plans to market "Ultimate Surrender," a video game based upon the proud military traditions of the Gauls.


In the game we follow the exploits of Lucky Pierre, an apprentice garlic salesman from Marseilles, as he joins the French Army and begins a rigorous course of combat training. The First Level of the game is called "Survival School," and the players have to help Lucky Pierre survive 24 hours without red wine or cr�me brul�. The Second Level is "Capitulation," and the goal here is to see which player can have Lucky Pierre surrender the fastest without firing a shot or getting his uniform dirty. Level Three is "Collaboration." Here the players battle to see who can collect the largest numbers of pairs of nylon stockings and packages of chocolates by having Lucky Pierre perform sexual favors for members of the occupying forces. Level Four is "Be Ungrateful to America for Rescuing Your Sorry French Ass Once Again." In this extremely challenging part of the game contestants vie with one another to see who can make Lucky Pierre behave in the surliest manner when the United States inevitably comes to the rescue of the defeated French. The Final Level is "Pretending to Have Been in the Resistance." Here contestants compete in a battle of tall tales and whoppers as they try to protect Lucky Pierre from treason charges.

Marketing tests show that "Ultimate Surrender" is a big hit with French teenagers and young adults who are too young to have experienced France�s lightening surrender to the Germans in 1940 or its defeat by the Vietnamese in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu. "Zees is a great tool to inspire ze patriotism in ze youths, n�est ce pas?" said General Jean-Jacques Loseur, Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, during his weekly press conference. "Since ze end of ze Cold War we French have not had many opportunities to surrender or to show great cowardice in the face of much weaker opponents."

When questioned about comments made in the French Chamber of Deputies that "Ultimate Surrender" makes the French Army look like a bunch of gutless mama�s boys, General Loseur pulled out a white handkerchief, put his hands over his head and said, "Oh heck, I give up."

[Incompetent]

:rofl:

[BLuE_ZeRO]

hahahahahahahahaha :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:

[Manitou]

OMG!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Lexington_Steele]

In defense of the undefended, France did dominate europe for a significant period of time.

Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon do come to mind when I think of great leaders in history.

Charlemagne and Louis XIV increased french power a great deal and made france the dominant area in the western world.

As far as Napoleon, you can't blame him too much for losing. Who knew that fighting a ground war against the Russians was such a bad idea? ;)

[BLuE_ZeRO]

No french defense allowed!

[Lexington_Steele]

BTW, what does France's record implicate?

France may bey opting out of fighting because they know if they do fight, NATO will lose.

Don't hate on France. They are doing their very best to preseve a NATO victory. :love:

[BLuE_ZeRO]

Preserving a victory for NATO? lmfao the only thing France is preserving is their cowardly beliefs.

[Manitou]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
BTW, what does France's record implicate?

France may bey opting out of fighting because they know if they do fight, NATO will lose.

Don't hate on France. They are doing their very best to preseve a NATO victory. :love:

:eek:

Glad you are NC! ;)

[BLuE_ZeRO]

:lol:

[Sputty]

:rofl::rofl::clap:

[mistled]

Unregistered, that's classic :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Navaron]

Best. Thread. Ever.

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
In defense of the undefended, France did dominate europe for a significant period of time.

Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon do come to mind when I think of great leaders in history.

Charlemagne and Louis XIV increased french power a great deal and made france the dominant area in the western world.

As far as Napoleon, you can't blame him too much for losing. Who knew that fighting a ground war against the Russians was such a bad idea? ;)

Charlemagne doesn't count as a great french ruler. He was the leader of the Franks which were more like Barbarians. They also didn't have a France at the time I think they were making the Holy Roman Empire or is that Barbarossa? I confused:confused:

[Zatrais]

:rofl: :lol:

damn frenchies

[Bighoss]

I'm tired of Nato I want something else;)

[Jaged]

All that said, during the first gulf war, a hole regiment of Arab troops surrendered to a lone french camera man. And no, I am not kidding, this realy happened.

[Unregistered]

That's only because a French Film is far more frightening then a French Soldier. Hell I think French Films are considered torture under the Geniva Convention.

[Navaron]

roflmfao!!!!!

[mistled]

Originally posted by Jaged
All that said, during the first gulf war, a hole regiment of Arab troops surrendered to a lone french camera man. And no, I am not kidding, this realy happened. That's only because the Arabs know that American's special forces are sneaky as hell and they would do something as devious as sending a lone frenchie out by himself, so that when the Arabs attacked, they could jump out from hiding and crush them.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Bighoss
Charlemagne doesn't count as a great french ruler. He was the leader of the Franks which were more like Barbarians. They also didn't have a France at the time I think they were making the Holy Roman Empire or is that Barbarossa? I confused:confused:
Why doesn't he count? He was ruling from where france is today. Is it such a strech to see that France came from the Franks? (I believe that Napoleonic france covered Charlemagne's kingdom and then some)

Did the French just materialize out of thin air and kick out the Franks?

[mistled]

I think so, yeah... *j/k*

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Why doesn't he count? He was ruling from where france is today. Is it such a strech to see that France came from the Franks? (I believe that Napoleonic france covered Charlemagne's kingdom and then some)

Did the French just materialize out of thin air and kick out the Franks?

cultures were too different at the time. They evolved into the french but they were a Barbarian tribe at first. Franks and French are different

[Arshune]

In all my time making fun of french people, I have never seen so thorough a punk nor a throwdown of a harder core. TOP NOTCH! Right now they're probably all saying:

"Nous sommes le sux0rz."

Or is sux0rz feminine...?


Edit: Upon reading this post, I even called myself a nerd.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Bighoss
cultures were too different at the time. They evolved into the french but they were a Barbarian tribe at first. Franks and French are different
French culture is very different than it was 200 years ago, but they were french then and french now. So which aspect of their culture makes the french french, and the franks not french?

So if the french got less smelly would they be any less french?

[JacenX]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/opinion/14LEVI.html (read that :) )

Originally posted by Manitou
Gaellic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all people, an Italian.
So we lost the gaellic wars but Charlemagne doesn't count, interesting http://forum.hardware.fr/images/perso/meganne.gif

After the Revolution some countries decided to attack us while France was pure chaos, but we won. Some years later Napoleon came and created a little empire for more than 10 years. We won a lot of wars against almost everyone, but Napoleon was quite crazy and he decided to go to Russia... Well you all know what happened after. (In the other hand it seems Hitler didn't know, so why should you?)


I'm quite afraid by what i see from USA, are newspaper, republican senators and other people saying what they say about France cause they really hate us, or cause they're too stupid to see that not only France but 75% of the european people are against war in Iraq?

"French people are smelly". Funny, i heard that in Brazil too... it seems it comes from the picture america (south and north) got from french people coming from Europe in boats in the XVIII century. Now i ll agree with you in a point : having so much good perfumes is quite suspicious :o

"French are cowards". Well, after our 1,6 millions dead in the WW1, we were quite traumatized. Unfortunatly ou leaders were traumatized suckers with no tactical sense. Ironically before WW2 de Gaulle wrote a book about that, and how our army had bad strategies in the 30s... unfortunatly he was quite right. Our ashaming "Maginot line" was "sod***zed" by the nazi forces, the rest of our army had to go backwards until beaches in the north. Many died, fortunatly many were saved by british ships, but we lost all the equipment we still had as the brits couldn't take it in the boats. To make things best, UK destroyed all our remaining fleet in Mers-El-Kebir, killing more than thousand french sailors. "Ho, thanks brits, you are wonderfull allies, now we re still more motived to fight with you" :rolleyes:. Marechal Petain, a 80 years old crazy man, last Hero of the WWI still alive, was called by some ppl to "save France"... He decided to surrender, wich was accepted as many people didn't want to fight anymore, principally cause UK was (logically) very very bad seen...
But in fact some still fighted and gave their life for France, of course, this would have been irrevelent without the americans sacrifices.

Say whatever you want, but we helped you against UK. :D

You helped our Ass two times in the 20th century. Does this mean that now, like those silly government from the Eastern Europe, we should say yes to whatever you say? Come on, we went with you (symbolically of course, but what do you expect from a lil 60 millions ppl country? ) in almost every recent conflict from Gulf War in 91 to Afghanistan in 2001 passing by Bosnia and Kosovo. But, then Bush came with this idea of attacking Iraq.
And he doesn't even say what? There s no proof they are links between Iraq and Al qaeda, wich is for us, the biggest threat, just before come North Korea...
Come on, Hawks are like "Iraq should gave proofs that we don't have any proofs against them". Saddam is bad, Saddam is ugly, Saddam is even worst than that. But at the moment, war is not the only solution we have to kick his ass. It will take some time, but at least we'll have chance to show to the muslims we haven't anything against them, and we'll have a chance to build a democracy in Iraq, and maybe then in other countries. Now, if really there's no choice we'll go there, but we'll not bomb civilians just cause "may be 10 years ago an al qaeda terrorist did a tourist trip in Iraq"... And we'll not bomb civilians to get more oil....

So i must say i'm quite disappointed with US attitude atm, you are supposed to defend democracy but you see yoursel as the world cowboy who are the only ones able to see what s good and what s bad (Ho yeah, omg, Kyoto protocol was a real bad thing bleeehhh ):rolleyes:
Just try to listen to what Yurop and your french friends are saying.

Then if you support and immediate attack against Iraq, i'll ask you to give us back Statue of Liberty cause we don't share anymore the same values :o

The funny thing is, there this huge mediatic attack against France just cause we don't agree in how and when to use military power against Saddam... This scares me, do american people really dislike France? :confused:

P.S: Sorry for the bad english, i'm french :o

[mistled]

I'll go ahead and warn you. You are in the wrong forum to be defending France.

First off, asking for a present back is rude, no matter the reason. Saying something like that merely perpetuates the idea that the French are rude.

Second, no one is asking France to do anything. France could have agreed to disagree with the US and simply said that its forces would not participate in the attack. France still would have been labeled as cowards, but we'd get over it. The problem is that the French and Germans are trying to stop the US from defending itself. If Saddam ever gets nuclear weapons or a chance to use chemical weapons against the US, he will do it, there is no doubt about that for anyone who has been following this man's history for the past ten years. The US either strikes him soon, or we just sit back and wait to die. It's a very simple concept. The American people's current anger towards France is that they see France as attampting to help people who want to kill us.

If Iraq was building weapons with the intent of killing you and the US told you to sit still and chill quietly, how would you feel about it??

[Navaron]

It is nice to finally see a french person around here to give the forums some depth.

"do american people really dislike France? "

I have to say that many of us do.

"And he doesn't even say what? There s no proof they are links between Iraq and Al qaeda,"

Yes there is. It's out there, hell some of it has been posted to the UNSEC. France simply refuses to use force. Ever.

"you are supposed to defend democracy"

We will defend ourselves first. You say the French are defending democracy also. What allows democracy? Strength and freedom. If the French are so pro freedom, why are they threatening Veto on NATO to protect Turkey's borders?

"war is not the only solution we have to kick his ass. It will take some time, but at least we'll have chance to show to the muslims we haven't anything against them, and we'll have a chance to build a democracy in Iraq"

So we're supposed to ask Saddam to just give up his power? I don't see him just retiring.

BTW - "Kyoto protocol was a real bad thing bleeehhh"

Yeah it was. The whole thing regulates US industry, even though over 90% of the polution in the world comes from 2 and 3rd world countries. What's the point of regulating the cleanest most efficient industries - those in North America - while not doing any thing about those who actually do the polluting. Yeah, I can see why we didn't sign that.

Anyway, it takes balls to come out in a forum like this, so you've got a pair, that's for sure.

[ABRAXAAS]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I'll go ahead and warn you. You are in the wrong forum to be defending France.



it??


Hey dont go there dont take part in a thread dissin french and then try to say there not aloud to post here that seems verey inapropriate.

you guys are bashing the french , expect altleast someone to stand up for themselves
:D

[Navaron]

Yet again, Abrax proves he's a moron. He wasn't saying don't post, he was giving him a heads up. It's nice to know if you're walking into a shit storm.

[JacenX]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron

Anyway, it takes balls to come out in a forum like this, so you've got a pair, that's for sure.
Thanks :o
Well i'll like sharing my point of view and principally knowing what other ppl think, that s why i'm here.

I'll try to answer point by point...

"I'll go ahead and warn you. You are in the wrong forum to be defending France."
Well, should i be defending France in a pro-France forum? (Yes, there are pro france forums! :o )

"First off, asking for a present back is rude, no matter the reason. Saying something like that merely perpetuates the idea that the French are rude."
It was a joke, and i find it less rude than all your bad jokes about we being antisemetistis, we being cowards, we being this and that, old "cliches" in fact...

"Second, no one is asking France to do anything. France could have agreed to disagree with the US and simply said that its forces would not participate in the attack. France still would have been labeled as cowards, but we'd get over it. The problem is that the French and Germans are trying to stop the US from defending itself. If Saddam ever gets nuclear weapons or a chance to use chemical weapons against the US, he will do it, there is no doubt about that for anyone who has been following this man's history for the past ten years. The US either strikes him soon, or we just sit back and wait to die. It's a very simple concept. The American people's current anger towards France is that they see France as attampting to help people who want to kill us."

I agree with you : the NATO veto was dumb.

Now I do believe that the people in real danger, atm, are the Iraqis, cuz they're sure to get some "high precision tactical laser guided by gps and shit bombs", jsut beacause recon will mistake a bunker and a school...
We don't want to help Saddam, we want to protect Iraquis, that s why the only arguement i accept for war atm is "We should free the iraquis". For sure many of them are in a bad way... but the problem is we're not sure, are we going to bomb and kill more of them just to check if we were right? I have to admit i'd not have the balls to take such a hard decision, in the other hands sometimes we have to act.
Actually, i'm really "happy" now, cause what you say is something I didn't get at all, even by trying to read nytimes, and other americans news.
I really didn't think you see Saddam Hussein as such a threat. For you, Saddam is a danger and we should bomb him. For us, european, and not only France (just have a look at polls), the principal threat is far to be Saddam Hussein. We're anxious (as i said it) about Al quaeda, about North Korea etc.
Here, in Europe, we see Saddam Hussein as a little dictator, who had his ass heavily kicked 10 years ago, while he was supposed to own "The 4th biggest army in the world". Plus, since 10 years he was under constant UN and US survey. So we really find it hard to see Saddam Hussein as such a Threat. The link with al quaeda? Well, "everyone" know Iraq s regime is the only
arab 100 % laic and secular regime atm, it's hard for us to believe he has an actual link with such a fanatical like Bin Laden. The only thing they have in common is the fact they're both arabs...
I'll add another things... In Europe we're very laic, secular etc, we like to separate clearly politics and religion. Seeing Bush, in his "crusade", scare us. We're like "wtf? we're not in 11th century! Does Bush want, like Bin Laden, to make this become artificially a civilization war?". Last example i see was about Columbia tragic accident. Bush spoke about how those 7 astronauts would be welcomed by the creator blablabla. What about all the iraquis civilians he's going to kill?
Then we see him as a wanna be cowboy. "You're with us (and thus you do everything we do) or you aren't with us". Well, can u believe, and it's not a joke, that we maybe allies and disagree in how to handle a problem? Can't we open our muthes without being insulted? Do you find normal to say the president of an allied country is "Saddam's bitch"? I don't. Ha, let me add another thing. Staline and Mao were great fans of this "With us or against us" theory :sarcastic:

So again, we don(t see Iraq as a threat, thus we don't see why we should take the risk of killing them. Worst, we don't have an idea of how the muslmims will react to this attack. Many in Europe are afraid to transform more young muslims in fanatical islamists ready to bomb themselves to rejoin Allah's kingdom. And this is a real problem.

We have the impression Bush don't see how critical is the situation there, how will arabs react when we'll bomb iraquis civil "to free them"? And i'm not talking of the iraquis who will be actually free with the help of America, i'm talking about those muslims who are near to hate America and are open to all kind of manipulation coming from Terrorist. Don't you think the attack of Iraq by USA will be an excellent way to "proof" that his is a civilization war?
Call us whatever you want, but we believe we're actually helping you. You see us as people who don't want to let you protect yourself. We see you as a great but hurted Nation, who's blinded by its sadness and don't see how worst the things will be if they play with their guns as they want to.

"If Iraq was building weapons with the intent of killing you and the US told you to sit still and chill quietly, how would you feel about it??"
As you, but seeing that US was our ally for more than 200 years i'd think a little about what more than 150 millions friendly persons are saying.

"do american people really dislike France? "

"I have to say that many of us do. "

Well, that s a shame, but as many European dislike americans, i can only say we'll stop this bullshit by knowing each other. With internet i met a lot of nice american people, and this helped me changing my mind.

""And he doesn't even say what? There s no proof they are links between Iraq and Al qaeda,"
Yes there is. It's out there, hell some of it has been posted to the UNSEC. France simply refuses to use force. Ever. "
I already spoke about al qaeda and IRaq link, but i'll add something. We Europeans, hate to see how USA try to manipulate information. How do you want to look like trusty, when Powel shows 10 years old photoes, and praise a britain paper which is a copy of a 12 years old american student report totally irrelevent? (even the gramar fault were copied...) .

We don't have the great US forces, but we do what we can, in Gulf war our one of our Aircraft carrier was there as some other stuff, in Bosnia and Kosovo we used mirages 2000, and our aeronaval task force (with the Foch carrier, a nuclear sub and some frigates), in Afganistan we used our newest (and first european) nuclear carrier, the Charles de Gaulle which permited more than 700 missions from recon to bombing.

I really don't see how you could see us as people who never use force. :confused: Again, may i remember you, we're far to be able to have such an army like you...

"We will defend ourselves first. You say the French are defending democracy also. What allows democracy? Strength and freedom. If the French are so pro freedom, why are they threatening Veto on NATO to protect Turkey's borders?"
I agree with this one, NATO veto was dumb. (Even if an israeli friend me today patriot anti missiles are a joke wichch couldn't defend Israel from Iraqi scuds in 91)

"So we're supposed to ask Saddam to just give up his power? I don't see him just retiring."
We're supposed to pressionate Saddam, to force him to destroy all his mass destruction weapons, and to show the world we praise every kind of lifes, from americans to arabs... What you said is horrible "better them than me". I can't accept this from someone with good education to say such a thing. We're supposed to be the most civilzed blablabla, we have to show the example, trying to solve the issue in civilizated ways. If you want to keep the "fear us lil arabs with unvaluable lifes, we have bigger guns, we deserve to life in a decent way and you don't" stay tuned to watch more WTCs in america. :rolleyes:

"The whole thing regulates US industry, even though over 90% of the polution in the world comes from 2 and 3rd world countries. What's the point of regulating the cleanest most efficient industries - those in North America - while not doing any thing about those who actually do the polluting. Yeah, I can see why we didn't sign that."

USA = 40% of the world polution.
Actually, I'm french brazilian, so as a brazilian i'll say you that lot of unclean industries in the 3rd world countries belong directly or indirectly to americans company. Thanks a lot for supporting our economy btw. Lol, just look at the maquilladoras. In the us parts they're 21th century buildings with 2 toilets by person, while in mexico they're 10th old century buildings, with 1 toilet for 200 peeps. Come on, give me a break :rolleyes: Then if you don't want to change your way of production, just make your big enormous cars use less gas, like ours. It could be usefull for our children. And who knows, maybe you'll not need anymore Iraqui oil...

[ABRAXAAS]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Yet again, Abrax proves he's a moron. He wasn't saying don't post, he was giving him a heads up. It's nice to know if you're walking into a shit storm.

Shut up you little cocksuckin bitch im gettin sick of your bitchy little ass, you no longer have the right to speak to me.

And on that note I will remove myslef from these proceedings:D

[JacenX]

Originally posted by ABRAXAAS
Shut up you little cocksuckin bitch im gettin sick of your bitchy little ass, you no longer have the right to speak to me.

And on that note I will remove myslef from these proceedings:D Say me you are american, PLEASE :o :D :p

[Arshune]

Few points I'd like to make-

The only reason the Iraqi people are in danger from bombing would be that Saddam refuses to evacuate his cities when he knows he'll be attacked, he puts civilians in MILITARY BUNKERS specifically to make the US look like a bunch of gung-ho trigger fiends.

All those countries opposed to war in Iraq are entitled to their opinions, but they should really express them by keeping their nose out of the whole mess. You don't think he's a threat? Fine, then leave him alone, the people who do will take care of it.

Washington needs to take its head out of its collective ass, North Korea is threatening to start a nuclear war and is suspected to have missiles that can reach the Western United States. Iraq is merely hiding some nerve gas that can't get anywhere near us. Anyone else think that's just a little bit out of order?

Edit: I should also note that I think the French are on to something, war with Iraq will cost money, something the American economy REALLY FRIGGIN NEEDS right now. They're just helping us in their own unintentional way. :D

[Sputty]

Abrax is CDN

[ABRAXAAS]

Im candian :D I know thats not verey canadian of me but He's been on my ass since I got here and even now that ive been being good he still takes every chance he can get to cut me down and even a well tempered polite canadian like me has to snap sometime :D

[mistled]

The US is not 40% of the world's population. There are 6 billion people on the planet. 287 million of them are American. (source) (http://www.prb.org//Content/ContentGroups/Datasheets/wpds2002/2002_World_Population_Data_Sheet.htm) That's a little under 5%.

Like was mentioned, the US doesn't plan to attack civilians. But civilians will die. They always do in war. Such the saying, "war is hell."

I'm glad you agree about the vetoes. :)

You're correct that we see Saddam as a threat. I think part of the problem in where people are looking. We are looking at a couple of things. One is Saddam's potential at getting WMDs in the future. We see this as a great enough possibility to warrant removing him from power. Especially since he has done nothing but lie about his weapon programs for over a decade.
Two is his potential to help terrorists. While I believe that he already has, you can't deny that a regime with that strong a hatred for the US would love to help terrorists strike the US, especially if they think they can get away with it. After all, they wouldn't be attacking the US directly, so why would we attack them?? We simply see no reason to let him continue to lie to the world until he gets enough technology to release anthrax or smallpox into LA or somewhere.

On to Korea. Now I personally don't know this, but neither does anyone else except the North Korean leaders. I don't think they will attack anyone with their nukes. You only announce that you have nukes for two reasons.
One is for your own defense. Much like MAD between the US and Russia, by saying you have nukes, you tell anyone who plans to attack you that you can retaliate with extreme prejudice.
Two is as a political bargaining chip. They come to the UN and basically try to bully themselves some leverage, making threats for aid of some sort. It's this one that I think North Korea is doing now.
The people to be afraid of are the one's who get nukes and don't tell anyone. They are the people who will actually use them. What better way to attack an enemy than with a much greater weapon than they think you have?? Once Korea announced that they were publicly breaking the treaty, they didn't bother me anymore. It's the nations that break the treaties, but tell you that they aren't that you should be worried about. ;)

[Arshune]

You should be very worried about Korea, they've gone so far as to reject U.N. authority over them and have also stated that they will wage war with the US unless we comply to their terms. I guess someone forgot to tell them that being able to reach the western limits of the country doesn't exactly compare with being able to sink their entire peninsula.

Edit: I should mention that the "statements" I'm referring to are things their officials have said to numerous news agencies. Korea is making public threats, while Saddamn is practicing reluctant compliance. One of the reason we're going after him is his defiance in 1998, something that Korea is effectively emulating with its expulsion of UN inspectors.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
You should be very worried about Korea, they've gone so far as to reject U.N. authority over them and have also stated that they will wage war with the US unless we comply to their terms. I guess someone forgot to tell them that being able to reach the western limits of the country doesn't exactly compare with being able to sink their entire peninsula. That fits exactly into the theory I described. They are threatening the US and UN because they want aid.

[Arshune]

Oh yeah, you also said something about countries that break treaties...well one of the provisions of the NPT was that a country had to give 4 months' notice to withdraw, and Korea just declared themselves to be withdrawn with complying to that provision. They didn't announce they were breaking the treaty so much as they just outright broke it.

They probably do only want aid, but I don't think a country that behaves that way deserves it. If a single person is punished for anti-social behavior, then I don't see why it should be any different for an entire country.

[Navaron]

Unfortunately for their dumb asses, they've managed to piss off China, Russia, and Japan, who have all promised a unified first strike if korea gets froggy.

[mistled]

See?? The US doesn't have to be the world police this time. Other countries are already on it. :)

[Arshune]

I'm saying it's a matter of principle though, and matters of principle seem to be what they're basing their attack on Iraq on. "Oh, he'll PROBABLY attack us when he gets the chance" vs. "they've THREATENED to attack us if we don't do for their people what they should be doing themselves instead of making bombs in the basement." It seems to me like Korea should at the very least be getting more media attention.

[mistled]

I think it's just a matter of one thing at a time. Winning in Iraq will only take a week and a half once we get started. Then we can deal with North Korea. Until then, China, Russia, and Japan can handle it.

[JacenX]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
The US is not 40% of the world's population. There are 6 billion people on the planet. 287 million of them are American. (source) (http://www.prb.org//Content/ContentGroups/Datasheets/wpds2002/2002_World_Population_Data_Sheet.htm) That's a little under 5%.
I wasn't talking about population but pollution... And i overdid a lil the number, USA s more than 20% of the global warming pollution (and not 40% :o), but it's already a lot as you're not even 5% of the mankind...

"It's the nations that break the treaties, but tell you that they aren't that you should be worried about. "
Then we should worry about USA, aren't you supposed to stop making biological weapons? :D HA sorry, you're not produing them, it s just for science... :rolleyes: :o

As we say in french, "i'm talking in the wind" (aka for nothin), but blocking Iraq, and having a 24/7 survey by UN soldiers could maybe stop the terrorist threat...
There are some stuff illogical in this story. If Saddam has WDMs why didn't he use them before, in gulf war "1"? for example? If he didn't use them cause he hadn't enough, I think it would be very very weird to discover that Saddam had been able to build WDMs under the noise of USA... Then why would Bin Laden bother trying to take weapons from Iraq which under an enormous military pressure while he can buy old nuclear stuff to the Russian mafia?

Don't take it bad, but, i think you're overdoing Saddam threat just to feel safier, you're afraid to understand that there are problems worst than him. He is in a prison, he tried to hide himself for the 10 last years, i think he wants to stay in power as many time as he'll be able to, I don't think he will ever attack USA cause this would mean almost instantaneous death for him, principally if Iraq is under close UN survey. Now imagine a little what can Bin Laden do with his millions of saudis dollar, there are lot of easier "ways" to get WDMs.

I think attacking Iraq is too much risk for too few :/ "idon'trememberwhatnewspaper" said something like "only an imbecile or a french would not see Iraq as a big threat after Colin Powell demonstratin in feb 5", well the point is Colin Powel demonstration was a joke, with no proofs at all, only speculations and old pictures, if you're gonna attack only cause you have speculations, you should look at Russia, North Korea etc, maybe even USA. That reminds me, as a conclusion, a joke in a french humoristic program :
american representant : "All right, this time we got real proofs Iraq bought WDMs and didn't declared them in their UN 12 000 pages document. We can ATTACK!
reporter : What? what are those proofs?
american : Here, look, we still have the bills...." :o

[mistled]

damn, I should actually read threads before I comment... I'm more tired than I thought... I could have sworn we were talking about population... oh well... :D

So basically, we just disagree on the threat level Saddam poses. I see him as a threat to my country and since I know we can win a war in under a month, I'm all for it. We are already fighting the war against terrorism. Nav or MrVicchio can probably give you the numbers better than I can, but huge numbers of Al-Qaeda members and leaders have been caught or killed. It's not like we have to deal with one or the other. We can do both. We're a pretty big country, after all.


... and yeah, you probably should worry about the US ;) ...some of us are sneaky as hell...

[Lexington_Steele]

JacenX, don't take what you read in this forum as representative of all American viewpoints. The popular opinion of this forum seems to be very conservative republican (as you might have noticed by all the bush avatars). Many of us Americans HATE Bush. Realize that the political opinions, that you read here, are congruent to something you would read in a freeper publication. I don't hate the french and neither does most of America (although we all enjoy a good joke at the expense of the french every now and again).

Another warning in advance: Many of the people in this forum are under the impression that America can do no wrong and that all of America's forign policy is rightous and morally correct. Stating otherwise will result in seizures, foul language, vomiting, flaming, and possible small pox outbreaks. :p

[mistled]

It should also be noted that most Americans are fucking idiots. (I actually think this applies to most of the world population, but I know more Americans than any other nationality, so I'll only extend my comment as far as the US)

[JacenX]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I think it's just a matter of one thing at a time. Winning in Iraq will only take a week and a half once we get started. I hope it'll take more time (what about never? ;) ) than that before seeing new terrorist attacks in USA...

[JacenX]

Lol, right, it's good to see "normal" ppl who doesn't read the New York Post and who do have common sense :o

"How are smart ppl called in USA?
-tourists!" :D

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
It should also be noted that most Americans are fucking idiots. (I actually think this applies to most of the world population, but I know more Americans than any other nationality, so I'll only extend my comment as far as the US)

:stupid: Maybe we should get a "Down with France" smiley?

I agree with the original post for the most part, but the US lost to the Vietcong as well, and that was the only war we realy lost(had a few ties and a burnt white-house).

The French are just impeading the rest of NATO at this point, and I think they should just leave NATO and let us get on with it. I don't have anything against the French people in particular, but their Gov. is starting to piss me off. The Germans at least are only saying they wont support an atack on Iraq, but probably wont impead it either.

There is definately an anit-France slant in these forums though.

[mistled]

Originally posted by JacenX
I hope it'll take more time (what about never? ;) ) than that before seeing new terrorist attacks in USA... I hope so to, but I don't think it will. I think that currently terrorists are waiting for us to attack Iraq now that it is certain that we are going to. They want it to appear that they are attacking the US because we started the war with Iraw, thus increasing anti-war sentiment within the country. Sad thing is, it may work. :(



.. and no one said anything about being normal...

[Navaron]

Cause I got called out...

We've captured over 60 high ranking officers of Al queda, and we've waxed over 300 (intentionally), and captured somewhere over 2,ooo other schmucks.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
The French are just impeading the rest of NATO at this point, and I think they should just leave NATO and let us get on with it. I don't have anything against the French people in particular, but their Gov. is starting to piss me off. The Germans at least are only saying they wont support an atack on Iraq, but probably wont impead it either.

The US sees a war on Iraq as being in the best interest of the American people and will therefore do whatever it can to start a war.

France sees a war on Iraq as not in the best interest of the french people, and will do whatever it can to prevent a war.

I find it tough to damn a nation that is looking out for the interests of its people. (Isn't that what we elect our politicians to do; to represent our interests?)

[SandTrout]

The french dont have to get involved in the war, but what reason would they have for not wanting to get rid of a brutal dictator that is trying to procure delivery systems for WMD? Unless the alligations that the french are getting black-market oil from Iraq are true...

[Mtx]

Originally posted by SandTrout
black-market oil


:lol:

[SandTrout]

What's so funny? Iraq is forbiden from selling oil for anything except food. If it sells it for money, it can only be done illeagaly, IE: the black-market.

[mistled]

Actually, it came out this week (or last) that some German companies (not the government, companies) were selling illegal items to Iraq. Just makes me wonder if France is trying to hide something along those same lines.

[Mtx]

I'm tired of my country being the worlds police. All over the world people want to kill eachother and we stop them. If we would let all these people just kill eachother off there would be no terrorist factions.

Not only that but it would make the world a lot more interesting.

[Navaron]

We could make the great wall of America. That has a nice ring to it. It'd help keep all those crazy Cannucks out too. (;) Dio)

[JacenX]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I hope so to, but I don't think it will. I think that currently terrorists are waiting for us to attack Iraq now that it is certain that we are going to. They want it to appear that they are attacking the US because we started the war with Iraw, thus increasing anti-war sentiment within the country. Sad thing is, it may work. :(
Terrorist atacks after war in Iraq, and riots in Arab countries will just show USA will not win the Terrorist war by acting dumbly and unilateraly. The european governements pro-war are just US's pet waiting for your money (Uk, Italy, Spain and principally eastern europe). France and lot of people in the world (as you can see it today) says no to war cuz we care about peace. Giving reasons to fanaticals and terrorists ( like Attacking Iraq without the agreement of most of the europeans and UN) to attack US and Europe is not the solution.

[JacenX]

I Believe USA must keep a high miltary pressure in Iraq but not attack, this way we'll may be able to disarm Saddam without having to use directly force.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by SandTrout
The french dont have to get involved in the war, but what reason would they have for not wanting to get rid of a brutal dictator that is trying to procure delivery systems for WMD? Unless the alligations that the french are getting black-market oil from Iraq are true...

What will france lose? There is the promise of lucrative deals,especially for french oil companies, once sactions are lifted. (you did realize that sanctions would not last forever didn't you?) There is also the the over 4 billion dollars that Iraq owes France.

If Saddam was removed, France will lose the billions of dollars loaned to Iraq, and it would lose billions in future revenues.

The idea of black market oil purchases is irrelevent. There are plenty of other reasons why France would not want to see a war in Iraq.

[JacenX]

Guys open your eyes and wake up!
Since the beginning our countries make a lot by selling weapons and by stealing oil from 3rd countries.

But this time, I don't it's a war foir oil.

First, as we all know Bush will atack with our without UN support, so the best way to have our oil companies in Iraq would be to make a coallition with USA, "we attack Iraq with you, we give you ful support and help with mass media manipulation but your don't touch "our oil", you take what is left" (and there s lot of oil left). By opposing war, France, Germany etc are just taking the risk of not participation of the rebuilding of Iraq, thus loosing the chance of having companies settled there.
Then, we know Saddam want to stay in power, and we know he's ready to sell all the oil he has to USA, France, etc, so why bother doing a war?

War against terrorism and WDMs? I'll not talk about it, Colin Powell tried to and it was near to be ridiculous. Outdated information, no proofs at all, just speculations. How could a little country like Iraq with, all the pressure he had since the gulf war, be a threat for us?

War against an evil dictator? Why not, but are USA going to attack every undemocratic country in the world? o_O

So, I really don't see any reason for this war, and neither all the millions people who went in the street today.

Now many people see what would be the bad consequences of attacking Iraq : destabilizing the middle east, rising antiamerican and antioccident feelings in the whole world and thus promoving terrorist attacks. Ho yeah, and of course, (i was going to forget it), economic crisis....