NationStates Jolt Archive

Things you would never here a French person say

... and we throw that part of the animal away

I have a lovely holiday home in the south of birmingham

Your English! how nice to meet you

bon jour massur Jeremy Clarkson
And the relevence of that is?

And good post Rhoderick, well said, the fact is that no nations people are better than any others. The French don't want to waste lives in a pointless war, good on the them.

And the relevence of that is?

And good post Rhoderick, well said, the fact is that no nations people are better than any others. The French don't want to waste lives in a pointless war, good on the them.

So its pointless to fight for human rights?
Its pointless to fight against terror?
Its pointless to fight those that violate international law?

:rolleyes:

Its pointless to fight those that violate international law?

:rolleyes:

USA has violated international law, what should be done about that?

USA has violated international law, what should be done about that?

How did we violate it?

I like to think that someday we(Britain) will control a third of the world again. It is because of those Damn Yankees that we don't anymore!

I like to think that someday we(Britain) will control a third of the world again. It is because of those Damn Yankees that we don't anymore!

Well... if King George III just gave in to the Olive Branch Petition, we wouldn't have had to secede from the British Empire :D

Although French fighter jets apparently couldn't take part in the battle because the Iraqis were flying the same jets.
That's Capitalism for you.

UK! Argentine! Falklands!!! Same jets!!!
Dizzy heat-seeking missiles!!!
LOL

As for the canda GB France vs US debate, canada would put up a month or 2s resistance and then fall, it would then be stalemate. Neather side would be able to cross the Atlantic. US does it, there navy gets killed by the combined might of the Uk's and Frances. Reamber that France and Britian have local bases and could refule quicker, giving them more airtime. Tehy would out wait the US fighters, (Other than the ones based on Air Craft carrierfs, which would be outnumbers) and destroy them. After that it would be target practace for the Europeans.

The Royal navy and the french navy could also finish the job as the US air suprioirty would be much use against such strong AA ships. It's the same the otehr way round, 3 days to cross the Atlantic (At least) means 3 days of constant air attacks, and even then i doubt that ladning anywhere it Britian would be practicals, and France would be even further to go.

Once you land there you'd face not just the highly trained british forces, but also the locals, and the RAF and royal navy. reamber by this time you'd have lost most of you Aircraft carriers and planes and you'd have no base for them to return to, end result? Once again, stalemate.

between the US air bases in Italy, Turkey, Germany, and other nations the threat posed by european airpower would be minimal. Further more England would never take up arms against the US. The US would flank Frances defensive lines just as Germany did in world war one and two and the US would be the victors. History shows the french cant fight a modern war without US intervention. If it comes down to the UK and France, the UK would deffinetly win.

How did we violate it?
the second Iraqi war thing. Yea kinda illegal, think of it as trespassing of sorts only on an international level.

the second Iraqi war thing. Yea kinda illegal, think of it as trespassing of sorts only on an international level.

How is enforcing International Law a violation of International Law?

Well... if King George III just gave in to the Olive Branch Petition, we wouldn't have had to secede from the British Empire :D

I was refering to when Roosevelt made Churchill sign an agreement to 'end the hoorible yoke of European Imperialism in Africa and Asia'. You Yankees blackmailed so that you would joind WWII.


HM King George III did everything right. If I had been in charge I would have ordered the eradication of every rebel and nuetral person in the colonies, reguardless of age, sex, or location!

How is enforcing International Law a violation of International Law?
The United Nations told the United States to wait.

The United States ignored the United Nations and attacked Iraq.

I'd say that's a violation, ignoring the UN's specific orders... :rolleyes:

Anyways, on topic...

Britain vs France: Britain would win.

Why? Anything I say will be accused of bias and stupid, which I admit it kind of is, since I'm not too fond of the frogs. Sorry, did I say that? I meant the French.

The United Nations told the United States to wait.

US waited 12 Years.

The United States ignored the United Nations and attacked Iraq.

After 12 years, I would've done the samething.

I'd say that's a violation, ignoring the UN's specific orders... :rolleyes:

Was there a resolution telling us to wait? Nope! Saddam violated 17 of them. UN did nothing. Saddam violated a UN approved Cease-fire. UN did nothing again.

So how is enforcing international law a violation of international law?

Anyways, on topic...

Britain vs France: Britain would win.

Why? Anything I say will be accused of bias and stupid, which I admit it kind of is, since I'm not too fond of the frogs. Sorry, did I say that? I meant the French.

LOL!!

With French relations France would take it hands down. Britain is allied to the United States and how many fronts can America fight, really?


Woah woah, forgetting WWII are we? We completely took the pacific front (well almost, have to mention the valient efforts of the Austrailans there too), and meanwhile provided the backbone for the invasion of Nazi-Ocupied France. America can fight on any front anywhere in the world.

The EU is strongly tied to international empathy, more so than the USA and England could ever dream of.
There is no way they could ever even think of inter NATO combat, however this is assuming that diplomacy has failed, in which case France is the victor because the UK couldn't talk thier way out of a paper bag.

Screw the EU. Russia isn't a member and they're the only European nation that can hold a candle to US and UK military prowess.

Oh yeah and the Sterling Pound woudl no doubt collapse if an intr-European war were to happen. Trade Emargos would be so overwhelming that England would lose about 3/4ths of thier investment and as iso inevitable the Euro will come out on top.

We produce most of the worlds food and a good portion of the worlds ore too. We could keep Britain running for a long time with their navy protecting our supply ships. I'm sorry but the only real military powers in the EU are France and Germany (and maybe Finnland, I know they were hot stuff in WWII) and really, that's just not enought to withstand the industrial might of the US and the Technological might of the US and the UK.

We produce most of the worlds food and a good portion of the worlds ore too.
Is that so?

Is that so?

Yes it is! I demand to know your name and address, so that I may...bomb...ahem... pay you a friendly visit.

Given history -- England more or less dominated conflicts with France in the Middle Ages, France's shining hours coming with Joan of Ark and Napoleon.

William the Conqueror was of Danish blood (was a North Man -- Norman).

William the Conqueror was of Danish blood (was a North Man -- Norman).
Yes and no.
He had Norse ancestors, but he spoke Norman, which was a dialect of French.

How did we violate it?
Humm, not having UN permission to invade.

The fatc is that we went to war on the bais of lies. Yes saddam broke resloutions, yes france vetoed your resloution-they where doing what they thought was best, think of all the times when the US has stopped action on Israil.

You do it all the time, France does it and you cry foul.

Humm, not having UN permission to invade.

We don't need the UN's permission to attack anyone. We never gave up our right to wage war on another country. Here's something for you to naw on. Did the Arabs have UN permission to take on Israel in 1948? Did Pakistan have UN permission to attack India? Did the USSR have UN Permission to invade Afghanistan? Did Tanzania have UN Permission to take on Uganda? Did North Korea have UN permission to take on South Korea?

I love the fact that people say we didn't have UN permission. Under international law, the cease-fire was broken. A cease-fire approved by the UN. Since it was approved by the UN, any violation of the cease-fire is covered. Saddam violated such a Cease-Fire. Therefor, our actions aren't illegal.

The fatc is that we went to war on the bais of lies. Yes saddam broke resloutions, yes france vetoed your resloution-they where doing what they thought was best, think of all the times when the US has stopped action on Israil.

Because Israel (that's the proper spelling) was defending themselves from the terrorists that are blowing up their civilians. :rolleyes:

You do it all the time, France does it and you cry foul.

France did it after making an agreement with Secretary of State Powell that went along the lines of: if your not going to support the second resolution, don't support this one! France agreed to 1441. :rolleyes: They broke the agreement that was made so yes, we can cry foul because it was. :rolleyes: That is a fact (also the proper spelling)!

well this is interesting is't it.
If Britain and france went to war the french would get slaughtered.
As for the Yanks taking on europe it would probably end withe the yanks being beat as there are so many countries that want to kill americans(like the russians whov'e been lookin for a good excuse to kill yanks for years) they wouldn't be able to cope.


BRITAIN KICKS ASS

Germany would attack both countries and quickly destroy them without great effort, first France and UK, then Russia, then US, afterwards THE WORLD!!!

Germany would attack both countries and quickly destroy them without great effort, first France and UK, then Russia, then US, afterwards THE WORLD!!!

Germany kicked France's ass in World War II. However, they didn't kick the British ass in World War II. They then got their ass kicked by the Russians, British, and American forces.

Germany would get their ass kicked a third time if they try to do so again.

The French army couldn't fight off a schoolgirl's hockey team. After a long and tiring match.

As someone once said. May have been Blackadder..

America :D

Here Here!

Britain. No contest.

France would surrender within the hour. :p

Seriously, I don't think France would be able to defeat Britain even with Britain no longer being a hyperpower and France also being somewhat on an equal plane.

If the United States went to war with Britain, I think it would be the War of 1812 in reverse: The BRITISH would embarrass the Americans in smaller ship actions, but the Americans having more hulls in the water would eventually lead to a blockade of the British isles and an amphibious invasion that would make Normandy look like a bunch of rude relatives coming to visit your home.

If the United States went to war with Britain, I think it would be the War of 1812 in reverse: The BRITISH would embarrass the Americans in smaller ship actions, but the Americans having more hulls in the water would eventually lead to a blockade of the British isles and an amphibious invasion that would make Normandy look like a bunch of rude relatives coming to visit your home.

I've said this before American could take Britain but I doubt very much it could hold the country for very long. While "techically" it could in practice I don't think America would have the guts to hold it. Five years MAX

Apologies if this message is a duplicate, computer crashed.

While I'm sure the USA could invade the UK I'm also sure It could never hold it. There would be riots and stuff and I don't think America could take it for long. Whilst in theory the USA could occupy Britain I don't think it would have the guts to do so. It would set up an interim government which would duly elect the same type of government it had previously. Meanwhile state side protestors would start whining and because America would send no one but troups it will hardly beable to establish itself. The only way America could maintain a presense would be to bomb the crap out of the Uk and offer to rebuild it, only this time they won't have any morale high ground unlike like in Iraq and West Germany. American occupation would last five years MAX.

There'd be no real winners in any scenario between the US and its allies in Europe, if that ever came to pass. The US would never be able to invade France or England, nor any European country the US. The US does maintain a stronger navy and air force and that would help in the battle to eliminate the enemy navies and air forces (The US's strategy in any MODERN war is to take out the enemy's airforce and navy first - usually, but not always in that order.)

But because invading those countries would be impossible, attacking their military machines would be pointless.

Same with Britain and France. Britain has a far more powerful air force and navy and they would win phase one of such a war. But they'd never be able to invade France - so I won't pick any winners there.