NationStates Jolt Archive

Im sooooooooo sick of French bullshit. The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else that there had to be an immediate cease fire and that "they would take the lead" in the UN mission to create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Now "take the lead" appears to be 200 men to contribute to the force. Yes thats right i said 200 men, this is not a typo. Typical French to yell the loudest then go run and hide in the back of everyone else as fast as possible when they actually have to back up thier bullshit with any form of responsible action. The ITALIANS are willing to commit up to 3,000 troops. Shame France SHAME SHAME.

Im sooooooooo sick of French bullshit. The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else that there had to be an immediate cease fire and that "they would take the lead" in the UN mission to create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Now "take the lead" appears to be 200 men to contribute to the force. Yes thats right i said 200 men, this is not a typo. Typical French to yell the loudest then go run and hide in the back of everyone else as fast as possible when they actually have to back up thier bullshit with any form of responsible action. The ITALIANS are willing to commit up to 3,000 troops. Shame France SHAME SHAME.



HERE HERE. The french are never going to back up anything they say. The extent of the french resistance in WWII was a swastika in a circle with a red X through it, on top of the Eiffel Tower...(i have a picture). Anyway, we really shouldnt take anything the french say seriously, because they simply dont help.

Oh that's nothing. PM Olmert declared he will not accept any troops from the UN along the border if they do not recognize Israel.

On that same topic: BEIRUT, Lebanon — Lebanon's defense minister said Sunday he is certain Hezbollah will not break the cease-fire but warned all militant groups of harsh measures and a traitor's fate if they incite Israeli retaliation by firing rockets into the Jewish state.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209484,00.html

The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else

Umm, no they didn't. Are you even European? I heard people much louder than the French.

Umm, no they didn't. Are you even European? I heard people much louder the French.

Would that be the Germans or the English?

Oh that's nothing. PM Olmert declared he will not accept any troops from the UN along the border if they do not recognize Israel.


Theres nothing wrong with that plan at all. It would be more harmful to Israel if there were nations patrolling and "protecting" its borders who did not communicate with israel. Would the US trust al qaeda operatives to run security at JFK?

Umm, no they didn't. Are you even European? I heard people much louder the French.


Ummm, who? I was there for the first week of the confict and i got a wave of anti-israel hatred first hand.

Oh boy, more Freedom Fries Ranting.

:D

Would that be the Germans or the English?

No, that would be several of the other European states. IIRC the UK and Germany were relatively silent.

Ummm, who? I was there for the first week of the confict and i got a wave of anti-israel hatred first hand.

Sorry, me no bitey your baitey.

No, wait. I'm not sorry at all.

Oh boy, more Freedom Fries Ranting.

:D

Rant or valid critique?

Sorry, me no bitey your baitey.

No, wait. I'm not sorry at all.



What are you talking about. Im not trying to start up a big debate here, im just saying that I was there, in paris and saw how the people reacted to the first week of fighting. They started out pro-israel, but...like the french do... support quickly declined for the rational party in the war, and turned onto the poor members of hezbollah who were taking an unjust beating.

What are you talking about. Im not trying to start up a big debate here, im just saying that I was there, in paris and saw how the people reacted to the first week of fighting. They started out pro-israel, but...like the french do... support quickly declined for the rational party in the war, and turned onto the poor members of hezbollah who were taking an unjust beating.

Did you say the "rational party"? Was there a rational party in this conflict? Because I count over a thousand (I think) Lebanese civilians and a large number of Israeli civilians dead. I see hundreds of thousands fled from their homes. What I don't see is rationality.

What are you talking about.

Exactly about that which was to follow:

Im not trying to start up a big debate here, im just saying that I was there, in paris and saw how the people reacted to the first week of fighting. They started out pro-israel, but...like the french do... support quickly declined for the rational party in the war, and turned onto the poor members of hezbollah who were taking an unjust beating.

You'll have to find someone else to entertain your anecdotes and bias. Me no bitey!

What are you talking about. Im not trying to start up a big debate here, im just saying that I was there, in paris and saw how the people reacted to the first week of fighting. They started out pro-israel, but...like the french do... support quickly declined for the rational party in the war, and turned onto the poor members of hezbollah who were taking an unjust beating.

The point here isnt what side France does or doesnt support. Its the Grand Weasel move they just pulled by raising a huge stink about getting a ceasefire and a UN stabalizing force then backing away from thier commitments like the cowards they are when its time to back up your words with action. Inexcusable.

Did you say the "rational party"? Was there a rational party in this conflict? Because I count over a thousand (I think) Lebanese civilians and a large number of Israeli civilians dead. I see hundreds of thousands fled from their homes. What I don't see is rationality.


Ladies and Genlemen, in this corner we have Israel. A well established country, backed by many credible world powers.

And in this corner, we have hezbollah, a terrorist organization which commited an act of war on Israel by kidnapping 2 soldiers for no apparent reason.



Round 1: Hezbollah launches an unprovoked attack into northern israel, killing IDF servicemen and kidnapping 2 more. Israel responds with military maneuvers in an attempt to rescure its soldiers

Round 2: Hassan Nasrallah declares war on Israel and has his terrorists launch THOUSANDS of rockets randomly on israeli homes and schools. Israel begins bombing strategic targest on lebanses soil, i.e. highways, airports and power stations.

Round 3: Hezbollah keeps launching hundreds of missiles every day, and israel responds with similar attacks.

Round 4: 1st cease-fire attempt is blocked by hezbollah.


Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which seeks the annihalation of an entire race of people and a whole country. True, israel had a stronger military in this war, but hezbollah started it and prolonged it by rejecting the cease fire. The war was hezbollah's fault, Israel was the rational party here because they didnt start anything, the simply responded to an attack on their soil.

Ladies and Genlemen, in this corner we have Israel. A well established country, backed by many credible world powers.

And in this corner, we have hezbollah, a terrorist organization which commited an act of war on Israel by kidnapping 2 soldiers for no apparent reason.



Round 1: Hezbollah launches an unprovoked attack into northern israel, killing IDF servicemen and kidnapping 2 more. Israel responds with military maneuvers in an attempt to rescure its soldiers

Round 2: Hassan Nasrallah declares war on Israel and has his terrorists launch THOUSANDS of rockets randomly on israeli homes and schools. Israel begins bombing strategic targest on lebanses soil, i.e. highways, airports and power stations.

Round 3: Hezbollah keeps launching hundreds of missiles every day, and israel responds with similar attacks.

Round 4: 1st cease-fire attempt is blocked by hezbollah.


Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which seeks the annihalation of an entire race of people and a whole country. True, israel had a stronger military in this war, but hezbollah started it and prolonged it by rejecting the cease fire. The war was hezbollah's fault, Israel was the rational party here because they didnt start anything, the simply responded to an attack on their soil.

Hezbollah started it by kidnapping two soldiers. They shouldn't have done this. Israel responded by bombing out every bridge in the country (not exaggerating). This is a serious problem in a country that basically consists of a coastline and mountains.

Hezbollah launched rockets at Haifa and other cities in the Galilee. Again, they should not have done this and I condemn them for it. They killed many civilians. Israel responded by bombing back. They bombed the only airport in Beirut. They bombed Qana and killed 100 civilians, which also occurred ten years ago. They killed thousands of Lebanese civilians. Yes, they were taking out Hezbollah. But they were so doing in a way that wrecked the Lebanese tourist season (once again a serious problem, because Lebanon struggles economically and one of their only draws is tourism) and caused deaths that might have been avoided.

Don't even try to make it look like I'm taking Hezbollah's side. I condemn their actions completely. I'm just not sure why you don't seem to have the same sympathy for the Lebanese who suffered as you do for the Israelis who suffered. My point is that they both suffered. My only hope is that the Lebanese army can keep the border stable from now on.

Remember France? This is a story about France.

They bombed Qana and killed 100 civilians, which also occurred ten years ago.

Bombed it yes. Killed 100 in said bombing, no. They did not find 100 bodies there. Actually, they found 28 bodies.

Human Rights Watch puts Qana death toll at 28 (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060802/3/2nycw.html)

Remember France? This is a story about France.

Yep you are right. My apologies for going off topic.

Bombed it yes. Killed 100 in said bombing, no. They did not find 100 bodies there. Actually, they found 28 bodies.

Human Rights Watch puts Qana death toll at 28 (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060802/3/2nycw.html)

Sorry, I mixed up the 1996 bombing (100 dead) with the 2006 bombing, which I see now. Thanks for correcting it.

Hezbollah launched rockets at Haifa and other cities in the Galilee. Again, they should not have done this and I condemn them for it. They killed many civilians. Israel responded by bombing back. They bombed the only airport in Beirut. They bombed Qana and killed 100 civilians, which also occurred ten years ago. They killed thousands of Lebanese civilians. Yes, they were taking out Hezbollah. But they were so doing in a way that wrecked the Lebanese tourist season (once again a serious problem, because Lebanon struggles economically and one of their only draws is tourism) and caused deaths that might have been avoided.

Don't even try to make it look like I'm taking Hezbollah's side. I condemn their actions completely. I'm just not sure why you don't seem to have the same sympathy for the Lebanese who suffered as you do for the Israelis who suffered. My point is that they both suffered. My only hope is that the Lebanese army can keep the border stable from now on.


Qana was a terrible accident, as was the bombing of the UN post. I feel extreme sympathy for the lebanese, and as much as i want to feel pitty for these people, i cant get past the fact that the people who died, were the ones who were holding up hezbollah flags, burning american and israeli ones and chanting DEATH TO ISRAEL. Its horrible that innocent people died but my brain just wont let me feel as much pitty as i could. Its like hiroshima and nagasaki, i want to feel pitty for the japanese, but the people were willing to kill americans until the world ended, and i just cant feel that much pitty (not sadness because i am sad, i just dont pitty them) because they were the supporting the terrorists too much.

(I think that we just saw completely eye to eye in another thread)

Sorry, I mixed up the 1996 bombing (100 dead) with the 2006 bombing, which I see now. Thanks for correcting it.

Glad I could be of assistance :)

Yep you are right. My apologies for going off topic.


amazing how quickly we can get off topic. I had a thread devoted entirely to getting off topic a few days ago. I just created the thread and let people go, the topic changed like 5 times on the first page.

Can I borrow a freedom tickler? My girlfriend just gave me a freedom kiss and I think she's alluding to more, looks like we'll have freedom toast together tomorrow.

Rant or valid critique?

Let's see...

Inflammatory title designed to denigrate France instead of an objective and tone-neutral header? Check.

A tirade of insulting stereotypes playing on the debunked myth of French racial cowardice? Check.

It's a Rant. Pass me the Freedom Fries. And some gravy, I wanna try some poutine.

kidnapping 2 soldiers for no apparent reason.

The reason Hezbollah kidnapped those two soldiers was to use them as a bargaining tool to try and force a prisoner exchange.

Anyway, I don't really blame France. The UN resolution doesn't give the force a clear mandate, and I wouldn't want to be there without one either.

The reason Hezbollah kidnapped those two soldiers was to use them as a bargaining tool to try and force a prisoner exchange.


Are you trying to defend that as a good reason to start a war? They were trying to FORCE a prisoner exchange.

Nice of you to not post a link or anything.
Infact, the french were the very first peacekeepers on the scene, the 200 being a rapidly deployed force. You, of course, don'tt give them any credit for their haste in getting troops there, just that they only sent 200(the count being 200 french, and 0 from any other country).

Another 200 are coming as well, which you dont mention. You don't mention there are no united states peacekeepers. You don't mention that France has tens of thousands of troops peacekeeping other areas as well.

Sorry if a nation of 60 million can't be everywhere, all the time. Unless I'm mistaken, the french have the most deployed peacekeepers per capita in the world.

There are plenty of nations sending no troops. Plenty have no troops there. Plenty who's troops will be much less effective, as france has much more experience than many nations with peacekeeping.

They brought a ceasefire. They got the troops their before anyone else. But you, the OP, and people like you, will look for any reason to bash the french.

Let's see...

Inflammatory title designed to denigrate France instead of an objective and tone-neutral header? Check.

My obligation to phrase a header tone-neutral? None. Does it in any way alter the validity of my point? No. Check.

A tirade of insulting stereotypes playing on the debunked myth of French racial cowardice? Check.

Its not a racial stereotype when its a discussion about an actual event thats happening today and in the headlines of every paper in the modern world, its called World News. Because it does indeed seem to fall under classic French stereotypes is merely extremly ironic. Check.

It's a Rant. Pass me the Freedom Fries. And some gravy, I wanna try some poutine.

I notice in your eagerness to call my OP a rant you at no time dealt with the issue i raised. Not....one....single...word. Check.

France isn't bad or cowardly, they are simply under the evil influence of the EU. And did I mention that no one actually listens to the UN?

Are you trying to defend that as a good reason to start a war? They were trying to FORCE a prisoner exchange.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Clearly you are, as I said no such thing. Perhaps you should read what people actually say, rather than what you want them to say.

(I think that we just saw completely eye to eye in another thread)


Heh, I think we did. It's funny how these things work out.

ZOMG france ww2 lolz they lost lolz cowards ZOMG!

/threadsummary

My obligation to phrase a header tone-neutral? None. Does it in any way alter the validity of my point? No. Check.

You claim it's a critique, yet the tone of the title clearly indicate you made up your mind from the start. Check.

Its not a racial stereotype when its a discussion about an actual event thats happening today and in the headlines of every paper in the modern world, its called World News. Because it does indeed seem to fall under classic French stereotypes is merely extremly ironic. Check.

I notice in your eagerness to call my OP a rant you at no time dealt with the issue i raised. Not....one....single...word. Check.

And you ignored what has just been posted by others, like France being one of the first to send peacekeepers there. Checkmate.

Freedom Fries, yum yum. Maybe I'll have some Freedom Toast too. And some Freedomfurthers with Freedom's Mustard on it.

amazing how quickly we can get off topic. I had a thread devoted entirely to getting off topic a few days ago. I just created the thread and let people go, the topic changed like 5 times on the first page.I rmeber that trhead..

but.. It was not your thread..

ohhh.. I see.. you are his puppet. :D

Infact, the french were the very first peacekeepers on the scene, the 200 being a rapidly deployed force. You, of course, don'tt give them any credit for their haste in getting troops there, just that they only sent 200(the count being 200 french, and 0 from any other country).

Another 200 are coming as well, which you dont mention.

Could you please cite where 200 French UN troops were ALREADY dispatched and were first on the scene? I have googeled this in many forms and other than the 200 troops that France in thier "gererosity" have donated to a future force i am unaware of any others that exist on the ground from France that were just recently dispatched. And even if this is the case...200??? Are you KIDDING me? 200 French troops couldnt guard the mess halls from Racoons. Its absolutly insulting to the rest of the World. If you cant put up then for christs sakes shut up France.

Could you please cite where 200 French UN troops were ALREADY dispatched and were first on the scene? I have googeled this in many forms and other than the 200 troops that France in thier "gererosity" have donated to a future force i am unaware of any others that exist on the ground from France that were just recently dispatched. And even if this is the case...200??? Are you KIDDING me? 200 troops cant guard the mess halls. Its absolutly insulting to the rest of the World. If you cant put up then for christs sakes shut up France.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_un_peacekeepers

To be fair, I had news a bit mixed up. The 200 on the ground is from UNIFIL. Only 50 reinforcements have arrived, with another 100 coming.

How many other nations have brought reinforcements as of yet? Why dont you call them out?

How many countries have promised even 200 troops yet? Why dont you call them out?

The french will have a total of 2,100 troops in the area(1700 backup, 200 unifil, 200 in the official peacekeeping group).Hardly paltry.

Again, why should such an onus be put on France? It did a huge part in bringing the ceasefire. It has troops there, and reinforcements before most nations have even promised to bring reinforcements.

How many troops does the united states have there?

It doesn't matter to you. Only your irrational hatred of the french does.

How many other nations have brought reinforcements as of yet? Why dont you call them out?

How many countries have promised even 200 troops yet? Why dont you call them out?

Now your the one not reading my posts. The Italians just comitted 3,000 troops today as i stated in my OP.

The french will have a total of 2,100 troops in the area(1700 backup, 200 unifil, 200 in the official peacekeeping group).Hardly paltry.

These numbers mean nothing to me. What does 2100 french troops in the area mean? Can you cite this? What is the function of 1700 "backup" French on the Israeli/Leb border? Are they actually located in the neutral zone?

Again, why should such an onus be put on France? It did a huge part in bringing the ceasefire.

LMAO it did a huge part in the ceasefire because it assured both sides that it would "lead the UN effort" in creating a ceasefire and then the world discovered what the French concept of leading is.It completly pulled an international fast one on a grand scale. Leading the UN effort with 200 troops????? What do they plan to lead exactly? The trumpet section of the National Anthem?
What France did was inexcusable, they negotoited in completly bad faith when they KNEW they wouldnt follow up with the committments they repeatedly made. Now we have a tenuous ceasefire and there is a GIANT vaccuum on the border just waing for a spark to reexplode cause the world expected France to move in rapidly and lead a force JUST LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD instead they left everyone else holding the bag.


It doesn't matter to you. Only your irrational hatred of the french does.

I assure you it does matter to me and there is nothing irrational about my hatred of the French government. Cites available apoun request.

Rant or valid critique?
Rant ... real valid critique would show how they "stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else "


As of now it is nothing more then a rant really

I'm going to rant against those who rant about rants. Eventually.

Rant ... real valid critique would show how they "stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else "


As of now it is nothing more then a rant really

Read about the process that the US and France underwent to reach the ceasefire agreement. The French were extremly insistent on negotiating a settlement and......
"The U.S. worked cooperatively with France on the cease-fire resolution, with the tacit assumption that France would support its diplomacy with a significant contribution to the expanded United Nations force in Lebanon."......"The stingy French offer is more than a symbolic setback. It calls into question the practicality of the U.N.'s plan for a quick deployment of 3,500 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon to augment 2,000 already stationed there. Any delay in deployment runs the risk of encouraging violations of the cease-fire by Hezbollah and a decision by Israel to hedge its bets by leaving some of its soldiers in place." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-france20aug20,0,6995440.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Gratz France!!

It seems so far that France has not at all ruled out sending more troops. These 200 additional soldiers are obviously a message to the UN to get the mandate worked out, before more troops will be sent. A good number of other countries (eg Germany) are waiting for the mandate to be established before making further decisions.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3293001,00.html
In Washington, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters "I expect we haven't heard the last from them." Privately, a senior US official said the United States is confident France will increase its commitment and added that the French have "not given us any indication they are backing away from being in the lead" of the expanded force.

This has more to do with diplomacy than with actual commitments if you ask me. Come back in a few days and we'll see.

It seems so far that France has not at all ruled out sending more troops. These 200 additional soldiers are obviously a message to the UN to get the mandate worked out, before more troops will be sent. A good number of other countries (eg Germany) are waiting for the mandate to be established before making further decisions.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3293001,00.html


This has more to do with diplomacy than with actual commitments if you ask me. Come back in a few days and we'll see.


It also takes quite a while to send thousands of troops and their equipment somewhere.

A lot of people are under the impression that all soldiers and equipment are easily moved. It's just not true.

While the US has parts of its military designed for rapid deployment (that is, 1 brigade or 2 every 18 hours), or an air expedition force in about the same time, any troops with armored vehicles take much longer. So does the eventual logistic train.

Other than the French Foreign Legion, the French don't have much capability for rapid deployment. Neither do most other nations. In this day and age, the US is unique in that capability.

Moving troops and supplies isn't like getting on an airliner and "there you are".

Now your the one not reading my posts. The Italians just comitted 3,000 troops today as i stated in my OP.
Actually, what you stated in your OP was that Italy 'are willing to commit up to 3000 troops'. And according to this source (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/21/worldupdates/2006-08-21T073429Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-264253-3&sec=Worldupdates), "The Italian government has not specified how many troops it is prepared to contribute, but officials in Rome say the figure could be up to 3,000". Rather a lot of uncertainty there - 'not specified'; 'could be up to'.

Currently (actually, latest figures are from July), Italy has 107 UN peacekeepers deployed worldwide - do you seriously believe they are going to increase that number by over 2500% for just one mission? (Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/july06_1.pdf)

France's current contribution of 200 (or 400 if you include their promised additional contribution) represents a 35% (or 70%) increase on their current deployment.

You say that "[France] KNEW they wouldnt follow up with the committments they repeatedly made". Really? Could you prove that they knew they wouldn't follow it up? No? Oh, I am surprised.

Apparently there will be an EU meeting some time this week to discuss the deployment of peacekeepers to the Isreali/Lebanese border - I imagine after that there will be concrete offers from a number of countries.

By the way, of all European countries, only two have announced how many peacekeepers they will deploy - France (400) and Finland (250, but they won't be deployed until November). Germany has stated it won't send troops, Spain has 'discussed' matters but provided no offer, and...that's it.

Im sooooooooo sick of French bullshit. The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else that there had to be an immediate cease fire and that "they would take the lead" in the UN mission to create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Now "take the lead" appears to be 200 men to contribute to the force. Yes thats right i said 200 men, this is not a typo. Typical French to yell the loudest then go run and hide in the back of everyone else as fast as possible when they actually have to back up thier bullshit with any form of responsible action. The ITALIANS are willing to commit up to 3,000 troops. Shame France SHAME SHAME.How many troops are being committed by your home country?

And next time, don't forget to add the French forces that are already part of UNIFIL to the 200, so that it doesn't seem smaller than it really is...

How many troops are being committed by your home country?

And next time, don't forget to add the French forces that are already part of UNIFIL to the 200, so that it doesn't seem smaller than it really is...
Let's not forget that the UN force won't really have the teeth to do anything. Consider that they will be there with the Lebanese Army, which is incapable of disarming Hezbollah.

The UN force will not be able to physically disarm Hezbollah, either.

No wonder nations don't want to commit troops. Because it's a debacle in the making.

Wicked Witch sends more flying monkeys toget Dorthy then France does troops to Lebanon
OMG! OMG Do you realise there are more ants in the world than France sent troops, too!? OMG!1!!11!!!11~

Ants... France...

It must mean something!

Let's not forget that the UN force won't really have the teeth to do anything. Consider that they will be there with the Lebanese Army, which is incapable of disarming Hezbollah.

The UN force will not be able to physically disarm Hezbollah, either.

No wonder nations don't want to commit troops. Because it's a debacle in the making.

Do I actually agree with you on something? Yeah, UN involvement in Lebanon has never turned out very well. The Lebanese Army is a different issue, though. People say they have the shiniest boots of any army in the world - they never get them dirty. They're basically good for parades and nothing else.

Let's not forget that the UN force won't really have the teeth to do anything. Consider that they will be there with the Lebanese Army, which is incapable of disarming Hezbollah.

The UN force will not be able to physically disarm Hezbollah, either.

No wonder nations don't want to commit troops. Because it's a debacle in the making.Strangely enough, the Israelis are willing to trust them with the job...

Do I actually agree with you on something? Yeah, UN involvement in Lebanon has never turned out very well. The Lebanese Army is a different issue, though. People say they have the shiniest boots of any army in the world - they never get them dirty. They're basically good for parades and nothing else.

I'm waiting for things to get bad, and Hezbollah take UN forces hostage.

None of the nations involved have any real ability to send a quick rescue force that could overwhelm Hezbollah. I think everyone knows that, which is why they're slow to start.

It's like sending hostages to Hezbollah. If any shit hits the fan, Hez will grab them and use them as shields and hostages.

Strangely enough, the Israelis are willing to trust them with the job...
Sometimes, when the international community expresses outrage, you have to stop fighting. And make a compromise.

It's not the Israelis I'm worried about, and neither are the other nations. It's what Hezbollah does to lightly armed troops who are outnumbered by Hezbollah at the end of a remote supply line far from their home country.

It will make Iraq look like a church supper, with a choir to sing a few hymns.

OMG! OMG Do you realise there are more ants in the world than France sent troops, too!? OMG!1!!11!!!11~



Hmm maybe you are just a young reader and dont understand comparisions? Ants= massive numbers, probably there are 10x more ants then the number of humans that have ever existed in the history of humanity. Flying monkeys=mythical creatures that, even in your imagination ,you would expect to exist in far far far lesser numbers then ants. Its called using humor to illistrate a point. Does that clear things up for you? Oh and France sucks.

Oh and France sucks.
I think that alone invalidates all of your claims that your original post was a valid critique and not a rant.

I'm waiting for things to get bad, and Hezbollah take UN forces hostage.

None of the nations involved have any real ability to send a quick rescue force that could overwhelm Hezbollah. I think everyone knows that, which is why they're slow to start.

It's like sending hostages to Hezbollah. If any shit hits the fan, Hez will grab them and use them as shields and hostages.

They won't kidnap UN peacekeepers. They'd just kill them a la the French or Americans in the 1980's.

As for the OP.... have a big ol' cup of :rolleyes:

Hmm maybe you are just a young reader and dont understand comparisions? Ants= massive numbers, probably there are 10x more ants then the number of humans that have ever existed in the history of humanity. Flying monkeys=mythical creatures that, even in your imagination ,you would expect to exist in far far far lesser numbers then ants. Its called using humor to illistrate a point. Does that clear things up for you? Oh and France sucks.
Can you not recognise the very same humour in order to illustrate a contradictory viewpoint?

You got served your own medecine.

Ants... France...

!!

Apparently there will be an EU meeting some time this week to discuss the deployment of peacekeepers to the Isreali/Lebanese border - I imagine after that there will be concrete offers from a number of countries.

By the way, of all European countries, only two have announced how many peacekeepers they will deploy - France (400) and Finland (250, but they won't be deployed until November). Germany has stated it won't send troops, Spain has 'discussed' matters but provided no offer, and...that's it.

Turkey has volunteered a force as well although i dont have #s at my fingers on that.

I agree that the European assistence in this matter has been embarassing. But why im holding France to a different standard, is they went out of thier way to be part of center stage in the negotiations. These ceasefire negotiations have been going on for almost a month now. France helped MAKE the terms. How could France POSSIBLY be confused about the terms of the ceasefire when they were the ARCITECTS of it? Germany, Spain et all kept thier mouths shut for the most part so i have a much lower level of expectation for thier support. France is an entirely different matter. If you actually decide to take over the kitchen, its your responsibility to make dinner.

Can you not recognise the very same humour in order to illustrate a contradictory viewpoint?



Hmmm i consider myself to have a fairly refined sence of humor, i have read your statement repeatedly and dont see where you used humor to illistrate a point in any way. So pardon my ignorance but could you please break down your"joke" so i may share and understand your humor? Thanks.

Turkey has volunteered a force as well although i dont have #s at my fingers on that.

I agree that the European assistence in this matter has been embarassing. But why im holding France to a different standard, is they went out of thier way to be part of center stage in the negotiations. These ceasefire negotiations have been going on for almost a month now. France helped MAKE the terms. How could France POSSIBLY be confused about the terms of the ceasefire when they were the ARCITECTS of it? Germany, Spain et all kept thier mouths shut for the most part so i have a much lower level of expectation for thier support. France is an entirely different matter. If you actually decide to take over the kitchen, its your responsibility to make dinner.

"Turkey has indicated it will contribute troops but wants to study the forces' mandate before making any decisions." - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4130099.html

I think the French government would counter that they want guarantees from other EU member states that any lead France makes would be followed by other European countries - hence the meeting this week at Brussels. Sure, they originally said that they'd contribute however many troops, but that was at a time when other European countries were also making positive noises about peacekeeper deployments. Now the whole thing has gone cold, with only two European countries having given figures as to the extent of their involvement.

The UN call went out last week for an additional 15,000 troops to help out in Lebanon. Although offers came from Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal, those were turned down in favour of "a strong European as well as Muslim content" to boost "confidence" in their protection.

It is entirely possible that France simply doesn't have enough resident Muslim peacekeepers to provide significantly more than 200.

I would think that a majority of the troops would come from northern Europe, where many Muslims have immigrated.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/ticker/tickerstory.asp?NewsID=19569
(UNIFIL)

Turkey has volunteered a force as well although i dont have #s at my fingers on that.

I agree that the European assistence in this matter has been embarassing. But why im holding France to a different standard, is they went out of thier way to be part of center stage in the negotiations. These ceasefire negotiations have been going on for almost a month now. France helped MAKE the terms. How could France POSSIBLY be confused about the terms of the ceasefire when they were the ARCITECTS of it? Germany, Spain et all kept thier mouths shut for the most part so i have a much lower level of expectation for thier support. France is an entirely different matter. If you actually decide to take over the kitchen, its your responsibility to make dinner.

Rather than point out that being strong in negotiating does not logically require that you then invest heavily in military terms, I want to point something out about the flying monkeys. In the book, not the movie, anyone who owns a certain magical golden cap can command the flying monkeys three times. The wicked witch of the west used up her last command when she told them to fetch Dorothy and the Lion.

Later, Dorothy has the cap, and she uses it to get the monkeys to fly them to the Emerald City. This was the scarecrow's idea.

You could say the Architect of the idea was the Scarecrow. he negotiated the solution. But he couldn't do anything until Dorothy used her Golden Cap to command the flying monkeys.

Now, can you see how France may be the scarecrow, the UN is Dorothy, and the armed forces of many nations are the flying monkeys?

Hmm maybe you are just a young reader and dont understand comparisions? Ants= massive numbers, probably there are 10x more ants then the number of humans that have ever existed in the history of humanity. Flying monkeys=mythical creatures that, even in your imagination ,you would expect to exist in far far far lesser numbers then ants. Its called using humor to illistrate a point. Does that clear things up for you? Oh and France sucks.
You seemed to have missed the joke …

And that last part … I knew it was just a rant thanks for showing us such

Rather than point out that being strong in negotiating does not logically require that you then invest heavily in military terms, I want to point something out about the flying monkeys. In the book, not the movie, anyone who owns a certain magical golden cap can command the flying monkeys three times. The wicked witch of the west used up her last command when she told them to fetch Dorothy and the Lion.

Later, Dorothy has the cap, and she uses it to get the monkeys to fly them to the Emerald City. This was the scarecrow's idea.

You could say the Architect of the idea was the Scarecrow. he negotiated the solution. But he couldn't do anything until Dorothy used her Golden Cap to command the flying monkeys.

Now, can you see how France may be the scarecrow, the UN is Dorothy, and the armed forces of many nations are the flying monkeys?


And Kofi Annan is the Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

The UN call went out last week for an additional 15,000 troops to help out in Lebanon. Although offers came from Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal, those were turned down in favour of "a strong European as well as Muslim content" to boost "confidence" in their protection.

It is entirely possible that France simply doesn't have enough resident Muslim peacekeepers to provide significantly more than 200.

I would think that a majority of the troops would come from northern Europe, where many Muslims have immigrated.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/ticker/tickerstory.asp?NewsID=19569
(UNIFIL)
Erm, I could be wrong, but I think 'a strong European as well as Muslim content' means that the UN wants there to be Europeans and Muslims among the force, not necessarily European Muslims.

It is entirely possible that France simply doesn't have enough resident Muslim peacekeepers to provide significantly more than 200.

I would think that a majority of the troops would come from northern Europe, where many Muslims have immigrated.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/ticker/tickerstory.asp?NewsID=19569
(UNIFIL)

I think you slightly misunderstood this. We want Muslims OR Europeans there not just Muslim Europeans. At this point frankly we will take warm bodies that wont shoot themselves in the foot.

Erm, I could be wrong, but I think 'a strong European as well as Muslim content' means that the UN wants there to be Europeans and Muslims among the force, not necessarily European Muslims.
Nope; the article says they are looking specifically for a "European-Muslim force."

I think you slightly misunderstood this. We want Muslims OR Europeans there not just Muslim Europeans. At this point frankly we will take warm bodies that wont shoot themselves in the foot.
Who's this "we"?

Nope; the article says they are looking specifically for a "European-Muslim force."
Yeah, I saw that. I'm interpreting that as European or Muslim, not European and Muslim.

Yeah, I saw that. I'm interpreting that as European or Muslim, not European and Muslim.
That wouldn't make much sense, then, in terms of inspiring "confidence". I read that they want individuals who are of a "multinational, multilateral character so that [the force] enjoys the confidence of both sides."

You're right, though, there is some ambiguity.

Nope; the article says they are looking specifically for a "European-Muslim force."


Speaking to reporters at UN Headquarters in New York after yesterday’s meeting of potential troop contributors, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although “enormously helpful” offers had emerged from Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal, it was vital for UNIFIL to have a strong European as well as Muslim content.



It implies European troops and troops from Muslim-majority countries.

You could say the Architect of the idea was the Scarecrow. he negotiated the solution. But he couldn't do anything until Dorothy used her Golden Cap to command the flying monkeys.


The analogy fails because the scarecrow isnt a nuclear power with a standing army and capable of responding without the help of Dorothy. And the scarecrow didnt tell Dorothy to use the hat then proceed to run away. Gives a whole new meaning to "Yellow" brick road.

And in this case it wasnt Dorothy that had possesion of the golden Cap it was the scarecrow(France). Instead of the scarecrow using the cap to call the monkeys, he threw it on the ground and wasted it.

It implies European troops and troops from Muslim-majority countries.
The problem is that many Muslim countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel, and Olmert has stated that countries that have no diplomatic relations with them shouldn't contribute to the force.

It appears you are correct, that the Europeans and Muslims are to represent two different troops coming together. But can anyone explain to me how the Europeans represent a "side" in the Israel-Lebanon war?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19569&Cr=Leban&Cr1=&Kw1=UNIFIL&Kw2=&Kw3=

It appears you are correct, that the Europeans and Muslims are to represent two different troops coming together. But can anyone explain to me how the Europeans represent a "side" in the Israel-Lebanon war?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19569&Cr=Leban&Cr1=&Kw1=UNIFIL&Kw2=&Kw3=
If you're referring to the line "We want this force that we deploy to have a kind of multinational, multilateral character so that it enjoys the confidence of both sides", I think it means Israel and Lebanon when it refers to sides. Otherwise, no clue.

If you're referring to the line "We want this force that we deploy to have a kind of multinational, multilateral character so that it enjoys the confidence of both sides", I think it means Israel and Lebanon when it refers to sides. Otherwise, no clue.
Yes, and "...when you combine them – a legitimacy that satisfies both sides to this conflict."

Oh well, politics isn't my forte.

Well, I asked my question of a learned friend and this is what he had to say:

France has always been a fairly strong supporter of Israel; they armed them before anyone else would, and France has a larger jewish population than anywhere other than Israel, the US and Russia. What is now (or at least once was) Lebanon was a French protectorate until the second world war, everyone there speaks french anyway. Basically Lebanon needs someone to stick up for them, and no-one will. Certainly the UN wont, as when previous UN missions have been there, even historically neutral forces like Ireland, they had the crap kicked out of them by both sides. Malaysia and Pakistan have offered to send sizable contingents, but both are predominantly muslim nations and neither have officially recognised Israel as a state, so Israel is making a big todo about them.

Oddly the only force ever recognised as doing a good job in Lebanon was, of all places, Fiji. They sent a battalion there in the late 80’s and didn’t brook any trouble from anyone, if they didn’t get what they wanted they went and kicked 7 shades of shit out of all concerned. The rules have changed since then though. As an aside when the fijians got home they almost immediately staged a coup, but never mind.

Israel has already shown their willingness to kill even unarmed UN observers in the last month. Anyone who sends troops there is going to lose a lot of them and from both sides, it is a hopeless situation. Israel wont behave unless the US tell them to, and the US wont because Hezbollah is Irani funded and supported and Iran is next on the list. It would be funny if people werent dying, but Israel has spent the last 40 years destabilising and emasculating the lebanese government, and they did such a good job of knackering a basically harmless and moderate government that it was incapable of opposing a more extremist alternative government imposed from without (Hezbollah).



Europe isnt representing a side, it is perceived as a comparatively even handed neutral particpant that basically everyone can shoot at with enthusiasm. The Lebanese army is too compromised to take on Hezbollah (who, frankly, are better trained and equiped and far more dedicated) while the Israelis will kill anyone and say the corpse was a hezbollah militant. Since the International Community (ie, the US and its cronies) have declared hezbollah a terrorist organisation it is everyone elses bounden duty to treat them like criminals, hence this bizarre new UN mandate which is basically the first ever to have teeth (meaning they can shoot people and blow things up, which has never been the case previously). Basically it is a catastrophy of the first water, and I deplore the idea that Australia is sending troops there, basically a sacrifical platoon.



Hows that?

"....hence this bizarre new UN mandate which is basically the first ever to have teeth (meaning they can shoot people and blow things up, which has never been the case previously). Basically it is a catastrophy of the first water,..."

Or maybe its the Birth of the UN finally becoming a relevent and useful body, one able to enfore its edicts and not be laughed at.

"....hence this bizarre new UN mandate which is basically the first ever to have teeth (meaning they can shoot people and blow things up, which has never been the case previously). Basically it is a catastrophy of the first water,..."

Or maybe its the Birth of the UN finally becoming a relevent and useful body, one able to enfore its edicts and not be laughed at.

We'll see how sharp the teeth are, and whether or not they're willing to use them.

Hezbollah could very well do to them EXACTLY what the insurgents in Iraq are doing to the US.

A few IEDs a day, blowing up various international troops, conducted by men who plant the charges in the middle of the night - and how long before protesters in those countries are demanding that their troops come home?

shoot people and blow things up
Ah, yes. The real way to solve the problems of the Middle East.

Ah, yes. The real way to solve the problems of the Middle East.
That only works if you kill everyone there. Otherwise, it's just a fireworks show.

"....hence this bizarre new UN mandate which is basically the first ever to have teeth (meaning they can shoot people and blow things up, which has never been the case previously). Basically it is a catastrophy of the first water,..."

Or maybe its the Birth of the UN finally becoming a relevent and useful body, one able to enfore its edicts and not be laughed at.
Hence the first steps towards World Domination?

Hence the first steps towards World Domination?
No, it's a bureaucracy, and it would never grow the balls.

No, it's a bureaucracy, and it would never grow the balls.
We can only hope.

Hence the first steps towards World Domination?
How could it be "World Domination" if the institution is merely a collection of the worlds representatives?

I never got that mentality of "us" and "the UN". We all make up the UN. :confused:

How could it be "World Domination" if the institution is merely a collection of the worlds representatives?

I never got that mentality of "us" and "the UN". We all make up the UN. :confused:

There's always us and them, no matter what country you're sitting in.

How could it be "World Domination" if the institution is merely a collection of the worlds representatives?

I never got that mentality of "us" and "the UN". We all make up the UN. :confused:
Just so.

However, the mentality that would like to see the UN as World Police very often are ones who have unrealistic expectations of what the UN should be.

Oh boy, more Freedom Fries Ranting.

But don't you think France should commit more troops?

Not every criticism of France is based on neocon agendas.

But don't you think France should commit more troops?

Not every criticism of France is based on neocon agendas.I think most people that are genuinely disappointed by France's failure to send a larger force have jumped to its defence from such obvious francophobia.

Hezbollah could very well do to them EXACTLY what the insurgents in Iraq are doing to the US. Exactly how would this further their cause? I mean... They are only ragheads, but surely there's a grand plan in place..? No?
EDIT: Maybe you think Hez is some mindless terrorist organisation... Well, it isn't. I have sat and drank tea with them fuckers... and while they have no honour while fighting... they are fighting for their country, not some Ummah you and Osama might think..

Remember those US marine barrack bombings in Beirut back in 84 if im not mistaken?

Well, it weren't just US marines that got wacked; French troops got killed, a whole bunch of them, 50 if im not mistaken (google for the numbers, people).

Anyway, the French are just being smart: Lebanon is an ethnic mess, and South Lebanon isnt crawling with Hizb Allah members,South Lebanon IS Hizb Allah.

Now, you are going to send UN forces (seems the Italians are gonna lead) into that area to.. what, disarm hizb allah? They aint going to do it. Not only would they use IED, but i have no doubt that they would use Anti-tank weaponry with great sucess (go to youtube, there are lots of footage of Hizb Allah attacking Israeli convoys, you just cant believe how good they are). So no.. no UN force in their right mind is going to pick a fight with Hizb Allah.

Hizb Allah wont attack them though, they would gain nothing.. but i'm seeing Hizb Allah provoking Israel, that dumb as they are would take the baig and would likely start bombing left and right. And what UN forces going to do? Attack Israel? Oh my, now that would be fun!

Come on. THINK PEOPLE. The French have been the smartest guys, pulling back of a dead-end situation.

The UN shouldnt go there, there are many ways to skin a cat.

Ever heard of the game "tribe vs tribe"? Well, Lebanese Christians and Sunnis aren't exactly glad that their enemy in the long Lebanese Civil war has gained so much.. political power. More than anyone, those two groups (and moderate Xiites) are the best to fight Hizb Allah, not in a battlefield, but in the hearts of the Lebanese.. or in the wallets. The billions that are going to be spent in this stupid lebanese UN mission should be spent on bribes on the people of south lebanon, because more than anything, they are the ones that support Hizb Allah.

"winning their hearts and minds"

Its really not a cliché.. its just that no one cares about it.

I think most people that are genuinely disappointed by France's failure to send a larger force have jumped to its defence from such obvious francophobia.
It's an inevitable fact that any criticism of the French government on NS is going to attract the "freedom fries" crowd. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise them.

It's the same "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit that has led to the rhetorical defence of Iran and Hezbollah by "leftists".

... from such obvious francophobia.

If the shoe fits....

If the shoe fits....So how many troops is your home country sending again?

It's an inevitable fact that any criticism of the French government on NS is going to attract the "freedom fries" crowd. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise them.

It's the same "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit that has led to the rhetorical defence of Iran and Hezbollah by "leftists".Yeah, I know. I think France should be sending more troops, but I'd hate to be associated with the bashing of the OP.

So how many troops is your home country sending again?

We will send Coke, Pepsi and Mcdonalds when the dust has settled. And trust me sending US troops into that fray would cause more trouble then good.

Yeah, I know. I think France should be sending more troops, but I'd hate to be associated with the bashing of the OP.
Why allow neocons to hijack every opinion you share? You won't criticise France just because a few neocons do? You know their motives are different from yours.

Finland, I believe was the 3rd to pledge troops to Lebanon... but only some 300 pioneers to rebuild the country, because the UN mandate is as shaky as it is. I, personally, wouldn't want to go back there to be bullied by both IDF and Hez and numerous other armed fuckers... cos I already have my duty free car *SO THERE*

If there was heavy enough UN mandate, and enough troops, maybe the peacekeepers would have a chance to DO GOOD. Let's hope they get the mandate, and the French will join too. Before any agreement how they can project force, there is no point going there to be killed. They'll just be other Khiam observers watching the artillery fire coming in.

Yeah, I know. I think France should be sending more troops, but I'd hate to be associated with the bashing of the OP.

LOL, i presented evidence of all my claims, none of which were disputed. You are critisizing me from drawing a conclusion from the evidence thats not to your liking so therefore im a "French basher" Ive made no false statements and am simply drawing a conclusion on Frances behavior in this instance from what ive seen and read, just like any other person here. There is a legalism in the United States that goes "Truth is a valid defence".

It's an inevitable fact that any criticism of the French government on NS is going to attract the "freedom fries" crowd. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise them.

It's the same "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit that has led to the rhetorical defence of Iran and Hezbollah by "leftists".
Yeah, a lot of people think a lot of countries should be sending more troops. At the same time, you have to understand they don't know what they're being sent there to do.

No good turning up to a knife fight with your dick in your hand.

France pushed the ceasefire because it served their interests. It also served the Lebanese. They got burned, badly, last time there was a MNF in Lebanon. I can see why (with no clear mandate) they are reluctant to plow thousands of troops into the region.

How many troops is Ireland sending? They on their way?

cos I already have my duty free car *SO THERE*
Merc was it? :p

Merc was it? :p
Nah... *gough*
Porsche 911... and it was already 3 years old when I bought it... But it was cheapish and blue!!! And I still have it. *wanks*
Sorry. It's just so much fun!

It wasn't as much fun getting the damn thing... sitting there, watching what IDF and Hezbollah, or whoever firing, was doing. Would you believe it, IDF used to fire a ridge some hundreds of meters from the post I mostly was in, just to tell us; "keep playing cards tonight, boys... we are going to visit". Such inhospitality! The Hez and myriads of other Lebanese armed groups at least offered us tea when they wanted something.

Oh well...

EDIT: I even mistyped it after 20 years together! LOL

I can see why (with no clear mandate) they are reluctant to plow thousands of troops into the region.


This is what irritates me about France..they were IN CHARGE of achieving that clear mandate and had the attention and focus of the entire world and they opted for a bandaid ceasefire and turned and ran instead of siezing that golden oppurtunity and actually doing the heavy lifting and hammering out a lasting agreement which is what really should have been done.

This is what irritates me about France..they were IN CHARGE of achieving that clear mandate and had the attention and focus of the entire world and they opted for a bandaid ceasefire and turned and ran instead of siezing that golden oppurtunity and actually doing the heavy lifting and hammering out a lasting agreement which is what really should have been done.

No they weren't. They were pushing for an immediate ceasefire. The politics of the mandate were to be worked out later (as it is now). All that mattered was the shooting stopped from both sides.

A cooling period was needed before the mandate could be finalised. No one wants to put their troops in harm's way while the situation is still unclear. That's why France pushed for a ceasefire first- after that came the mandate.

Its been slow- hence the lag in getting commitments. I have no illusions that as soon as a mandate (preferably strong) is finalised, the French will be in the thick of it as usual.

Why allow neocons to hijack every opinion you share? You won't criticise France just because a few neocons do? You know their motives are different from yours.Oh, I don't give up my opinions. There just doesn't seem to be the need to add any criticism when the thread starts off as an anti-France rant to begin with. There's hardly any point in posting my opinion on the matter of the deployment unless someone manages to hijack the thread and bring it on a more sensible track.

The French got the cease fire..and then ran ...so whats new ?:p

The French got the cease fire..and then ran ...so whats new ?:p

:rolleyes:

I really do not like anti-French jokes. That one has to be the oldest.

How many countries have sent soldiers to Lebanon right now, except for UN soldiers ?

Another problem is that the soldiers sent may not fire before the UN give them the right to do. So it would be useless to send thousands of troops for the moment, just for the Hizb Allah to train on them. If you want to rant, rant against the UN !

Another problem is that the soldiers sent may not fire before the UN give them the right to do. So it would be useless to send thousands of troops for the moment, just for the Hizb Allah to train on them. If you want to rant, rant against the UN !

The Security Council has already approved the rules of engagement.

...Oddly the only force ever recognised as doing a good job in Lebanon was, of all places, Fiji. They sent a battalion there in the late 80’s and didn’t brook any trouble from anyone, if they didn’t get what they wanted they went and kicked 7 shades of shit out of all concerned. The rules have changed since then though. As an aside when the fijians got home they almost immediately staged a coup, but never mind...
That's not odd. Have you ever seen a Fijian?
Some of those guys are huge - even for Pacific Islanders (and that's saying something). To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, Joe Rokocoko (the 'c' is pronounced as an aspirated 'th' if it's within a word btw) is in the NZ All Blacks.
He's considered slender by Fijian standards.
He's 189cm tall (6'2")
He weighs 104kgs (230lb)
That's small in Fiji.

They could knock seven types of shit outta polar bear if they wanted to.

Word to the wise: Don't ever get a drunk Fijian angry. In fact don't even risk it - just never go out drinking with a Fijian. To make it worse they seem to be all fast twitch fibre as well - so don't even think about out-running one.

Just to brighten up this thread a bit, here's the Fijian sevens in action:
http://static.flickr.com/28/66739561_0700322509.jpg

The Security Council has already approved the rules of engagement.
What exactly are they? Do you have a link?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/08/23/2003324488
The EU's Peace and Security Committee added the issue of contributions to the force, known as UNIFIL, to its agenda last Wednesday. But one European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, cautioned against any major new announcements.

France, which leads the current 2,000-strong force, had been expected to make a significant new contribution and continue its command.

But French President Jacques Chirac, wary of getting involved without a clear UN mandate to use firepower if necessary, announced last week that France would immediately add only 200 combat engineers to its 200 troops already serving in UNIFIL, though he did not rule out a future increase. France said it was willing to continue leading the force until February.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432927,00.html
European nations are worried about the rules of engagement for the UN force. D'Alema said that Italy would be unable to send troops to Lebanon as long as Israel "keeps shooting."
[...]
Beyond Italy, European troops would also come from Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. D'Alema held out hope that France might reconsider its offer of only 200 troops. It had originally been expected to contribute at least 2,000. "In the end I think that even the French will be present in a more hefty fashion," he said. "Even if France does not reconsider it, we will go ahead anyway."

The Security Council has already approved the rules of engagement.

Let's hope that France will accept to send more troops now that the mandate is clear. When were the rules of engagement approved ?

Im sooooooooo sick of French bullshit. The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else that there had to be an immediate cease fire and that "they would take the lead" in the UN mission to create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Now "take the lead" appears to be 200 men to contribute to the force. Yes thats right i said 200 men, this is not a typo. Typical French to yell the loudest then go run and hide in the back of everyone else as fast as possible when they actually have to back up thier bullshit with any form of responsible action. The ITALIANS are willing to commit up to 3,000 troops. Shame France SHAME SHAME.
France.:(

:rolleyes:

I really do not like anti-French jokes. That one has to be the oldest.


hmmm...... WW II
Indochina
Algeria

What happened ?

A " joke" or a " truism " ....:D

hmmm...... WW II
Indochina
Algeria

What happened ?

A " joke" or a " truism " ....:D
a joke. And a bad one at that. No matter how many times it gets repeated. :rolleyes:

Well, I asked my question of a learned friend and this is what he had to say:


Lies. Gary Bretcher has no friends!

a joke. And a bad one at that. No matter how many times it gets repeated. :rolleyes:

So, there's going to be ANOTHER civil war in Lebanon?

hmmm...... WW II
Indochina
Algeria

What happened ?

A " joke" or a " truism " ....:DWow... France has fought more wars than that and those are all you came up with? I mean the US pulled out of Somalia and Vietnam and has been around for a lot less. Does that make us cowards too?

Wow... France has fought more wars than that and those are all you came up with? I mean the US pulled out of Somalia and Vietnam and has been around for a lot less. Does that make us cowards too?

Do not forget Lebanon Laerod.

a joke. And a bad one at that. No matter how many times it gets repeated. So, there's going to be ANOTHER civil war in Lebanon?
the joke gets repeated, not the war. :rolleyes:
You fail at reading comprehension.

Wow... France has fought more wars than that and those are all you came up with? I mean the US pulled out of Somalia and Vietnam and has been around for a lot less. Does that make us cowards too?

anyone notice a pattern here?

french colonialism screws up in Vietnam - US wades in to try to fix Vietnam

italian colonialism screwed up Somalia - US wades in to try to fix Somalia

british line drawing and former colonialism lays roots for most of the Middle East conflict (Israel, Kuwait, Iraq) - US wades in to try to fix some of it

maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea that France has to go into Lebanon - someone else's turn to go in and fix the screwups.

No, that would be several of the other European states. IIRC the UK and Germany were relatively silent.


Like Sweden? even had a conference about Libanon

My apologies, when i read the article i was half asleep last night, rules of engagement wernt passed it was a "draft" that i had read and mistaken for pased policy. However just FYI the draft rules of engagement included self defence, the right to disarm small groups of people and the right of "preemptive defensive attacks" No mandate to disarm Hez although there are already multiple UN resolutions stating this already.

No mandate to disarm Hez although there are already multiple UN resolutions stating this already.
The UN is amazing like the parody of the UN in the movie Team America.

-- Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you! Let' me see your whole palace, or else!
Kim Jung-Il: Or else, what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.

*snip about Fijians*

Yeah, you don't fuck around with Pacific Islanders. Samoans are all man-monsters as well. We had a number of them in the Army. Damned good guys to have watching your back in a barfight, though. You don't really need to do anything, you just watch that giant Samoan guy wreck shit.

The UN is amazing like the parody of the UN in the movie Team America.

-- Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you! Let' me see your whole palace, or else!
Kim Jung-Il: Or else, what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.

It would be funny if it was not true. Unfortunately this is indeed true :(

Italy?! No offence but…

Italy?!!

I do hope that France is using its sudden departure from its willingness to lead the mission in order to extract concessions and to get a robust mandate…

We need a large force with a real mandate, for this mission to have any chance of success. UN troops in Lebanon should be capable to induce heavy costs upon any transgressor.
.

UN troops in Lebanon should be capable to induce heavy costs upon any transgressor.
.


You owe me a new keyboard. After reading that tripe, I spewed coffee all over.

Italy?! No offence but…

Italy?!!

Yeah? And?
Normally the historically neutral countries (or those with no vested interest) do the best in these situations. See Italy, Finland, Fiji, Ireland et al. Both sides respect these forces as being even handed and trustworthy.

You owe me a new keyboard. After reading that tripe, I spewed coffee all over.
I did not say it was likely...

I said it was essential for a slim chance of success, mind you...

Yeah? And?
Normally the historically neutral countries (or those with no vested interest) do the best in these situations. See Italy, Finland, Fiji, Ireland et al. Both sides respect these forces as being even handed and trustworthy.


Thats true, but in this case we need both strong diplomatic, economic and military pressures on both sides... They need more than respect for them not to become clay pidgeons both parties can freely shoot at. As is currently the case with UNIFIL....

Thats true, but in this case we need both strong diplomatic, economic and military pressures on both sides... They need more than respect for them not to become clay pidgeons both parties can freely shoot at. As is currently the case with UNIFIL....

Here's the problem.

Look at Iraq. The most powerful militaries in the world there. US and UK forces. Sure, if you attack them directly, guns blazing, you'll get your ass kicked to Hades. But, put a few IEDs by the side of the road each day...

Now, see that happenning in Lebanon. Hez puts a few IEDs out each day - each day, a few UN troops buy the farm.

How long before French, Italian, and voters of other nationalities get tired of reading the same reports we in the US have been reading for a few years now?

They won't put up with it for more than a few times.

It's not enough to have the weapons and soldiers. Your home electorate has to have the balls to see it through - or you're just wasting time.

Thats true, but in this case we need both strong diplomatic, economic .....pressures on both sides...
Which is the job of governments or the SC, not the troops on the ground. The nationality of the troops has no bearing on the economic or diplomatic pressures being exerted.

They need more than respect for them not to become clay pidgeons both parties can freely shoot at. As is currently the case with UNIFIL....
In places like Lebanon, Namibia, East Timor etc people respect these neutrals more than the big "imperial" powers like Britain or America or in some places France (Cote d'Ivoire).

The best forces for these areas are the neutrals.

Which is the job of governments or the SC, not the troops on the ground. The nationality of the troops has no bearing on the economic or diplomatic pressures being exerted.

In places like Lebanon, Namibia, East Timor etc people respect these neutrals more than the big "imperial" powers like Britain or America or in some places France (Cote d'Ivoire).

The best forces for these areas are the neutrals.
You are right, troops need government backing, and the the government must keep all the diplomatic channels open with all the parties in the conflict. This includes Israel, Hizbu-llah, Phalangists, the US, Syria and Iran...

Actually I do agree that neutrality is essential, but these other factors matter as well. France seems to have a bit more to offer on these factors, though it still should be backed by "other" major powers...

Is not France neutral enough?

Is not France neutral enough?
Thought you were talking about Italy?

In this case France would not techincally be neutral no. At the same time they have invaluable experience in peacekeeping and particualrly so in Southern Lebanon- they would be central to any strong force in the area.

At the same time, Italy and others as just as respected in the area (from both sides which is a rare thing)

France did support the Maronite Christians in several wars against the Druze. And they were Lebanon's colonial master, so they aren't completely neutral. They may be neutral enough, though.
What matter is whether the parties to the conflict see them as neutral.

Not whether we see them as neutral.

Is not France neutral enough?

France did support the Maronite Christians in several wars against the Druze. And they were Lebanon's colonial master, so they aren't completely neutral. They may be neutral enough, though.

France did support the Maronite Christians in several wars against the Druze. And they were Lebanon's colonial master, so they aren't completely neutral. They may be neutral enough, though.
I know, but I hope that the lapse of time has restored their "neutrally"

I know, but I hope that the lapse of time has restored their "neutrally"

Probably not.

How many troops is Ireland sending? They on their way?

None in the first wave but probably in the second wave. You make a good point though about the vagueness of the mission.

anyone notice a pattern here?

french colonialism screws up in Vietnam - US wades in to try to fix Vietnam

italian colonialism screwed up Somalia - US wades in to try to fix Somalia

british line drawing and former colonialism lays roots for most of the Middle East conflict (Israel, Kuwait, Iraq) - US wades in to try to fix some of it

maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea that France has to go into Lebanon - someone else's turn to go in and fix the screwups.
The US isn't going in to fix European screwups. They go in to serve their own agenda.

I know, but I hope that the lapse of time has restored their "neutrally"
people have a long memory. Just look at these forums. We are still discussing the Crusades. They've been over for what now? 500 years?

people have a long memory. Just look at these forums. We are still discussing the Crusades. They've been over for what now? 500 years?

The crusades are not yet over

Last time I heared that we where in a crusade, was a few years ago in a speech by that American guy, we all see on the news a lot...

I think you are right though :)

The crusades are not yet over

Last time I heared that we where in a crusade, was a few years ago in a speech by that American guy, we all see on the news a lot...

I think you are right though :)
:D

Oh I know who you're talking about. This Pat Robertson guy, right? Or was it Fred Phelps?

Here's the problem.

Look at Iraq. The most powerful militaries in the world there. US and UK forces. Sure, if you attack them directly, guns blazing, you'll get your ass kicked to Hades. But, put a few IEDs by the side of the road each day...

Now, see that happenning in Lebanon. Hez puts a few IEDs out each day - each day, a few UN troops buy the farm.

How long before French, Italian, and voters of other nationalities get tired of reading the same reports we in the US have been reading for a few years now?

They won't put up with it for more than a few times.

It's not enough to have the weapons and soldiers. Your home electorate has to have the balls to see it through - or you're just wasting time.Indeed, however Hizbullah, unlike the insurgents in Iraq, has a Robin Hood reputation to uphold with the local population. The insurgents in Iraq aren't running hospitals or daycare centers.

Indeed, however Hizbullah, unlike the insurgents in Iraq, has a Robin Hood reputation to uphold with the local population. The insurgents in Iraq aren't running hospitals or daycare centers.
They also have a reputation as "defenders". A big one, now.

If the UN tries to disarm them, peacefully or otherwise, they will try to scare the UN off with IEDs.

They also have a reputation as "defenders". A big one, now.

If the UN tries to disarm them, peacefully or otherwise, they will try to scare the UN off with IEDs.What needs to be done is to convince the population that Hizbullah isn't needed to defend Lebanon from Israel. A lot of the Christians in the South were happy that the army was moving in, because they aren't as trigger happy and can help convince people that Hizbullah is obsolete as a militia.

What needs to be done is to convince the population that Hizbullah isn't needed to defend Lebanon from Israel. A lot of the Christians in the South were happy that the army was moving in, because they aren't as trigger happy and can help convince people that Hizbullah is obsolete as a militia.

Well, if the current situation is any indicator, a lot of Lebanese are saying that Hezbollah heroically defeated the IDF.

Well, if the current situation is any indicator, a lot of Lebanese are saying that Hezbollah heroically defeated the IDF.Depends on whom you're asking, yeah.

Update:

President Jacques Chirac has pledged a total of 2,000 French troops to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon.
He announced the move in a televised address in which he described the ceasefire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas as "fragile".

France was heavily criticised over its initial offer of just 400 troops for the UN force.

It had been expected to provide the backbone of the peacekeeping deployment in its former colony.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5283660.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_un_peacekeepers



How many troops does the united states have there?

It doesn't matter to you. Only your irrational hatred of the french does.

But the US never promised 1,000's of troops, France did. The US promised to provide logistical support, which we will,and believe me, this would not be able to happen without the logistical support from the US and UK. France also promised to lead the force, and now they are backing down, Kofi Annon if criticizing France for backing down...

Seems like you have an irrational hate fo the US.

But the US never promised 1,000's of troops, France did. The US promised to provide logistical support, which we will,and believe me, this would not be able to happen without the logistical support from the US and UK. France also promised to lead the force, and now they are backing down, Kofi Annon if criticizing France for backing down...

Seems like you have an irrational hate fo the US.
read the update...

anyone notice a pattern here?

french colonialism screws up in Vietnam - US wades in to try to fix Vietnam

italian colonialism screwed up Somalia - US wades in to try to fix Somalia

british line drawing and former colonialism lays roots for most of the Middle East conflict (Israel, Kuwait, Iraq) - US wades in to try to fix some of it

maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea that France has to go into Lebanon - someone else's turn to go in and fix the screwups.
Yeah, sure there's a pattern:
After years of being suppressed as a colony and then getting rid of their former colonists the US decides to do the opressing and killing themselves, following their own stupid imperialistic agenda. It's not that hard to see, now is it?

Yeah, sure there's a pattern:
After years of being suppressed as a colony and then getting rid of their former colonists the US decides to do the opressing and killing themselves, following their own stupid imperialistic agenda. It's not that hard to see, now is it?

I think it's more of a misguided sense of do-goodery.

I think it's more of a misguided sense of do-goodery.
I bet those two million Vietnamese you did for good might disagree.
As might those countless other victims of all the wars the US started in the last 100 years.

I bet those two million Vietnamese you did for good might disagree.
As might those countless other victims of all the wars the US started in the last 100 years.
I'm not saying we were doing the right thing. But we probably thought we were.

Gee, I guess you're saying we started WW I and WW II?

Or was that Germany in WW II?

I'm not saying we were doing the right thing. But we probably thought we were.

Gee, I guess you're saying we started WW I and WW II?

Or was that Germany in WW II?
Don't get side-tracked there, DK. At least I didn't claim Germany started WW2 out of good will and charity and we simply slightly overdid it!

I am fully aware of my country's history without trying to diminish the motifs or consequences.

Hell, what you just posted is really a sad excuse. Only "I was just following orders" is worse.

And don't try to put words in my mouth about who started the great war and the world war. That's only making you look stupid.

Don't get side-tracked there, DK. At least I didn't claim Germany started WW2 out of good will and charity and we simply slightly overdid it!

I am fully aware of my country's history without trying to diminish the motifs or consequences.

Hell, what you just posted is really a sad excuse. Only "I was just following orders" is worse.

And don't try to put words in my mouth about who started the great war and the world war. That's only making you look stupid.

You're the one who said "past hundred years".

You're the one who said "past hundred years".
You think I should go back even further?!? :p

[come on, take it easy - I'm really not in the mood for a big debate right after I've had supper... All the blood's going into my bowels right now and I'm not looking to upset you that much ;)]

You think I should go back even further?!? :p

[come on, take it easy - I'm really not in the mood for a big debate right after I've had supper... All the blood's going into my bowels right now and I'm not looking to upset you that much ;)]
I'm never upset.

BTW, I do believe that Hitler (and a lot of Germans) thought they were doing the right thing.

I mean, you don't get millions of people to go along with something, with everyone thinking, "oh, we're making a big fucking mistake".

That comes later, when things don't work out like they planned.

I'm never upset.

BTW, I do believe that Hitler (and a lot of Germans) thought they were doing the right thing.

I mean, you don't get millions of people to go along with something, with everyone thinking, "oh, we're making a big fucking mistake".

That comes later, when things don't work out like they planned.
Good to know.

And yes, I think you're right. Of course most people who volunteered and actively took part in that whole mess (especially those who started and furthered it) thought it was a brilliant idea :rolleyes:. But hindsight is always 20 20.

[Where does that last expression come from? Why 20?!?]

Good to know.

And yes, I think you're right. Of course most people who volunteered and actively took part in that whole mess (especially those who started and furthered it) thought it was a brilliant idea :rolleyes:. But hindsight is always 20 20.

[Where does that last expression come from? Why 20?!?]


"If your visual acuity is determined to be 20/20, you see at 20 feet what a person with normal vision sees at 20 feet. If you have 20/40 vision, you see at 20 feet what a person with 20/20 vision would see at 40 feet. And, if you're one of the lucky ones (e.g., 20/15), you can see at 20 feet what others would have to move closer (15 feet) to see..."

"If your visual acuity is determined to be 20/20, you see at 20 feet what a person with normal vision sees at 20 feet. If you have 20/40 vision, you see at 20 feet what a person with 20/20 vision would see at 40 feet. And, if you're one of the lucky ones (e.g., 20/15), you can see at 20 feet what others would have to move closer (15 feet) to see..."
Oh! Okay. Thanks for that. Here we have the average set at 100% and depending on how well you see, that percentage goes up or down. Last time I got checked, I was at 125% L&R.

(And maybe that's it with the threadjack for now - I don't wanna get into more trouble than necessary ;))

Crow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5284284.stm), anyone?

Seems to me this thread did the trick... it forced the French to pledge more troops.

Crow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5284284.stm), anyone?

Seems to me this thread did the trick... it forced the French to pledge more troops.

Now to get the wicked witch to send more monkeys after Dorothy.

I wonder if we will see any suicide attacks on the UN force?

Now to get the wicked witch to send more monkeys after Dorothy.

I wonder if we will see any suicide attacks on the UN force?
Well, there's the 3000 Italians, Spain some 700, Belgium promised substantial(?) amount of troops... Even Finland promised 250, so I can't see the others giving less (some 1000 this far). Germany won't send ground troops, but will send ships... Getting there. Slowly, but getting there.

I really can't see what Hez would gain by attacking the Blue berets at this point (Things can evolve to that, sure. Anything is possible there). Of course, some fundies with their own deranged agendas could attack UN troops, just to try to stir things up. Syria has been making some weird noises lately, but...

:D

Oh I know who you're talking about. This Pat Robertson guy, right? Or was it Fred Phelps?

I think it was some George Walker guy...

Well, there's the 3000 Italians, Spain some 700, Belgium promised substantial(?) amount of troops... Even Finland promised 250, so I can't see the others giving less (some 1000 this far). Germany won't send ground troops, but will send ships... Getting there. Slowly, but getting there.
I'm highly embarrassed and slightly angry my country is not sending anything yet. :(

I really can't see what Hez would gain by attacking the Blue berets at this point (Things can evolve to that, sure. Anything is possible there). Of course, some fundies with their own deranged agendas could attack UN troops, just to try to stir things up. Syria has been making some weird noises lately, but...

I can't see them attacking this time. It's a different scenario from the early 80's.

Crow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5284284.stm), anyone?

Seems to me this thread did the trick... it forced the French to pledge more troops.

I will be acccepting Nobel nominations.

I will be acccepting Nobel nominations.
Hehehe.. cute. How about this for a crow:

Im sooooooooo sick of French bullshit. The French stood on top of Europe stomping up and down and yelling louder then anyone else that there had to be an immediate cease fire and that "they would take the lead" in the UN mission to create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Now "take the lead" appears to be 200 men to contribute to the force. Yes thats right i said 200 men, this is not a typo. Typical French to yell the loudest then go run and hide in the back of everyone else as fast as possible when they actually have to back up thier bullshit with any form of responsible action. The ITALIANS are willing to commit up to 3,000 troops. Shame France SHAME SHAME.

Ketchup?

Ketchup?

Huh? This proves i was right. My whole point was Frances troop commitment was embarassingly inadequate and apparently even they themselves finally agreed. Ketchup? Hardly. I call it my point vindicated.

Huh? This proves i was right. My whole point was Frances troop commitment was embarassingly inadequate and apparently even they themselves finally agreed. Ketchup? Hardly. I call it my point vindicated.Your point drowned in your overflowing francophobia.

Your point drowned in your overflowing francophobia.

Ive said it before and i will say it yet again. Its not Francophobia when my conclusions are supported on facts and evidence. Cites available apoun request.

I hate muderers. Despite the fact we have evidence they murdered people and i dislike them because of it, i clearly have a bad case of murdererophobia.

Huh? This proves i was right. My whole point was Frances troop commitment was embarassingly inadequate and apparently even they themselves finally agreed. Ketchup? Hardly. I call it my point vindicated.
Hehehe...

No.

They were waiting for a clear UN mandate, or signals from the UN. When they got that, they comitted the troops. As expected.

[q

Hehehe...

No.

They were waiting for the UN mandate, or signals from the UN. When they got that, they comitted the troops. As expected.

So by French logic commmitting 400 troops without a UN mandate is acceptable but 2000 NO WAY?

Look, we can all agree that this provides more opportunities for more duty free cars... and I ain't got a problem with that. ;)

Huh? This proves i was right. My whole point was Frances troop commitment was embarassingly inadequate and apparently even they themselves finally agreed. Ketchup? Hardly. I call it my point vindicated.
Maybe so, but I only look at your OP. Sorry

Ive said it before and i will say it yet again. Its not Francophobia when my conclusions are supported on facts and evidence. Cites available apoun request.It appears to me, however, that you are merely using facts and evidence to support your forgone conclusion that France is a horrible country.

I hate muderers. Despite the fact we have evidence they murdered people and i dislike them because of it, i clearly have a bad case of murdererophobia.Let's not go down bad metaphor alley just yet, shall we?

It appears to me, however, that you are merely using facts and evidence to support your forgone conclusion that France is a horrible country.

I am almost 40 years old. I have a degree in Political Science. I have had more then ample time to gather facts and evidence to reach a conclusion about France. The simple fact that they continue to do things that support the way i feel about them, like i said before, is mere irony.

I am almost 40 years old. I have a degree in Political Science. I have had more then ample time to gather facts and evidence to reach a conclusion about France. The simple fact that they continue to do things that support the way i feel about them, like i said before, is mere irony.And yet you bring it across in a manner that is more appropriate for a 12 year old.

And yet you bring it across in a manner that is more appropriate for a 12 year old.

I am not required to defend my manner of posting..only the facts of my arguement.

You are not even the OP DK...
Crow... I taste it everytime I post in NSG. This OPoster MUST taste it too!
CROW!!!

Say it is so...

This whole thing was started by the British. We should give the Palestinians Wales and let the Israelis keep their country.

You are not even the OP DK...
Crow... I taste it everytime I post in NSG. This OPoster MUST taste it too!
CROW!!!

Say it is so...

Could someone please translate this into an understandable form of English please?

This whole thing was started by the British. We should give the Palestinians Wales and let the Israelis keep their country.

I dont think anyone is in any position to "let" Israel keep thier own country. Id suspect they have very strong feelings of thier own on the issue.

I dont think anyone is in any position to "let" Israel keep thier own country. Id suspect they have very strong feelings of thier own on the issue.
wow. Spoken like a person totally incapable of detecting facetiousness when it smacks them right in the face like a big wet trout.
Still, they do say it's the last form of humour that is understood as one grows. Assuming you're 13 or 14 (which by your posts is a more than reasonable assumption), there's hope you'll mature into it yet.

Well, there's the 3000 Italians, Spain some 700, Belgium promised substantial(?) amount of troops... Even Finland promised 250, so I can't see the others giving less (some 1000 this far). Germany won't send ground troops, but will send ships...
Germany can't send troops, Israel would never allow it.

Assuming you're 13 or 14 (which by your posts is a more than reasonable assumption), there's hope you'll mature into it yet.

Heres an assumption for you, your an ignorant ass that clearly hasnt even read the last 8 or 9 posts. I own underwear older then you my friend.

Heres an assumption for you, your an ignorant ass that clearly hasnt even read the last 8 or 9 posts. I own underwear older then you my friend.

Maybe people could understand what you were saying if you'd quit stuffing your mouth full of Freedom Fries. And really, you should consider buying fresh underwear. Might do wonders for your mood.

Maybe people could understand what you were saying if you'd quit stuffing your mouth full of Freedom Fries. And really, you should consider buying fresh underwear. Might do wonders for your mood.

What part of what i ever said didnt you clearly understand?

Germany can't send troops, Israel would never allow it.
It's been talked about. Israel isn't the issue so much as the Germans themselves, who don't want their soldiers to get into conflict situations with IDF soldiers. The Israelis have for decades now said nothing but good things about the Germans and consider them very trustworthy (with the exception of some, obviously).

The idea was to send German soldiers to the border between Lebanon and Syria (which seems like it could be a fun mission too, judging from what the Syrians have been saying). But AFAIK that idea was discarded, and they're gonna send ships now, and perhaps logistics and supplies.

And that should probably end the thread. The French committed the extra forces for a total of 2000, making them one of the biggest contributors. So the pretext for the francophobic rant of the OP has fallen away.

You are not even the OP DK...
Crow... I taste it everytime I post in NSG. This OPoster MUST taste it too!
CROW!!!

Say it is so...

No, I'm not the OP... but I see no reason to taste crow.

I feel it will take a long time to put any real troop presence there. And, the mandate will be fucked up, and Hezbollah will not be disarmed.

I am not required to defend my manner of posting..only the facts of my arguement.I don't have to take you seriously, either ;)

I don't have to take you seriously, either ;)

And yet you spent all this time replying to his posts and reading his replies...

when this thread first started i completely agreed with it. That was before france comitted 2k troops. sicne they've upped their amount, why do we still have this thread, shoudnt it have died 4 days ago?

when this thread first started i completely agreed with it. That was before france comitted 2k troops. sicne they've upped their amount, why do we still have this thread, shoudnt it have died 4 days ago?

Because Real Americans™ love Freedom Fries.