Quit while you're ahead?

Navaron · 2003-02-12, 06:43 PM

The french should have learned too....

http://www.drudgereport.com

more specifically

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1042491836448

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-12, 06:53 PM

I dont want to get into these political threads but this is kinda retarded, the US is acting like a bunch of big babies, its the classic "your not listening to me so im taking my toys an going home" scenario. the french doesnt agree with the us so there going to cause problems for them ... and I quote "

'The resolution is only one of several efforts being considered in Congress to punish French industry. Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, has discussed with Republican colleagues imposing regulations on French wine and bottled water imported into the US.'

thats juts sad

Civilian · 2003-02-12, 07:00 PM

It's not sad, it's justice. When France joined NATO they agreed to defend other NATO countries if they were in danger of being attacked. They chose not to help defend Turkey and they should pay some sort of price. It just shows how weak organizations like NATO and the United Nations really are. One descending vote in the security council is enough to stop any action.

I am anti-war, but there is time when action must be taken. And though I don't believe that time has arrived, the Germans and French believe that time will NEVER come.

If the US really wants to punish France, pull out of NATO and watch it dissolve.

Sputty · 2003-02-12, 07:19 PM

Easy answer: Kick them out of NATO....

mistled · 2003-02-12, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Civilian
It's not sad, it's justice. When France joined NATO they agreed to defend other NATO countries if they were in danger of being attacked. They chose not to help defend Turkey and they should pay some sort of price. It just shows how weak organizations like NATO and the United Nations really are. One descending vote in the security council is enough to stop any action.

I've said it before and here it is again... America hates cowards. That's all there is to it. And we hate people who make weapons deals with terrorist nations almost as much. (yeah, that's not proven, but get over it

)

mistled · 2003-02-12, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Sputty
Easy answer: Kick them out of NATO....

Easier answer: Get the hell out of NATO ourselves.

Nohimn · 2003-02-12, 07:22 PM

I agree! If they don't withhold their side of the deal! That's what they get! But we will probably see some bootlegging

Sputty · 2003-02-12, 07:25 PM

I think NATO is important as an "institution"(We've been suefyul before in more peacekeeping-ish missions) and the fact that leaving NATO wouild look bad on the U.S.'s side. What about all the countries who voted yes? Also, it would look bad that when U.S.'s enemy is gone to just leave that.

�io · 2003-02-12, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
And we hate people who make weapons deals with terrorist nations almost as much

And you think Americans haven't? I highly doubt not 1 single american has made deals with terrorists and such.

And i agree with Sputty, leaving NATO just because 1 country says no would be a bad thing. Best thing i see is kick france out of NATO...or nuke 'em...either way.

Sputty · 2003-02-12, 07:37 PM

Either way we have to deal alot less with the french(not french-Canadians Dio. The country France)

Nohimn · 2003-02-12, 07:39 PM

I hate the french. I also hate french culture.

http://www.realfears.com/fears.php?index=f

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-12, 07:42 PM

Navaron you just love startin threads for people to argue in, your a uber troll

Sputty · 2003-02-12, 07:46 PM

This isn't an arguement. More of a "Why I hate the french" thread. That being said Nav isn't trolling but allowing us t debate a topic.

Nohimn · 2003-02-12, 07:47 PM

debate what? It all boils down to that everyone on the forums hates the french.

mistled · 2003-02-12, 07:48 PM

I would like to point out something to all of you who think NATO is actually useful. Back when Turkey, a member of NATO, was under attack, it was France, with its veto power that refused to allow NATO to defend them.
The entire concept of NATO was to provide a defensive network. It was a fear thing. If you attack one member country, you are effectively attacking them all. That was the whole point. NATO was to serve as a deterrent to would be attackers. But if NATO doesn't even have the balls to defend its own members, what is its use?? It is no longer a deterrent for attacking nations because they know that NATO might not defend its members.