NationStates Jolt Archive

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.


Kudos for you for attempting to turn a "let's fight this with intelligence as opposed to firing nukes where we see fit" discourse into an "I love terrorists" discourse. Really, really good work there, I'm impressed.

Only, not.

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler.

Does the Suez mean anything to you?

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.

The riots had nothing to do with religion.

Nice try at just dredging up half facts to slam the French because they weren't going to be Bush's bitch.

The riots had nothing to do with religion.

Nice try at just dredging up half facts to slam the French because they weren't going to be Bush's bitch.

Heh... notice the way he insults France for never standing for anything and then insults her for not answering to Bush's beck and call?

The riots had nothing to do with religion.


Bingo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

a lot of the rioters were black christians and portuegese

local residents say that "second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even many children of native French have taken part."


Heck, even french natives contributed to the violence. But no, just because the electricuted kids were muslims, so its islam's fault. No doubt many rioters were arabs & muslims, but is it so inconceivable that non-muslim anarchists could get pissed at the gend'armes for this?

"Cheese eating surrender monkeys". The only good thing Mr Rummsfeld will be remembered for is that phrase.
And note to americans, terrorism existed in Europe for a very long time before 2001, honest. And the French were pretty good at sorting it out.
I'm not French, indeed am genetically predisposed to make war on them, but they're actually an OK bunch mostly.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It’s the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it’s the wrong approach for the United States.
You know what you should do? Rename some comestibles. That’ll show ‘em.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?.

The French had problems with Algerian Islamists from the early 90's with the bombings in the Metro. Due to slow but steady police work they have closed down the cells, and arrested the perpetrators. Despite the colonial past of the French, this was done without killing 10's of thousands of people. This is what we call "progress".

The riots had nothing to with Islamism, but rather unemployment and disenfranchisment within the largely immigrant urban poor.


No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler.

The usual crap-by-rote.


Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

Yes, and funded them, ignored warnings about them, create situations in which they flourish......

You know what you should do? Rename some comestibles. That’ll show ‘em.

IPPON!!! :D

Yes, and funded them, ignored warnings about them, create situations in which they flourish......

Wait, are we talking about the terrorists or the French?

French Revolution joke here.

British and German taxpayers fund the French though the Common agricultural policy.......

Wait, are we talking about the terrorists or the French?

If you ask the neocons, there's no difference.

But, then again, neocons can't differentiate certain letters either.

French Revolution joke here.

All purpose revolutionary joke: "Sir, sir, the peasant's are revolting!"

"Well I know that... I do have a nose you know."

Oh Boy!! It's another NationStates Freedom Fry!!

I'll bring the green bean casserole!!

Does the Suez mean anything to you?
The French performance there doesn't impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.

British and German taxpayers fund the French though the Common agricultural policy.......

Ok.... and the in's and out's of the CAP has what to do with the French "rejecting the War on Terror"?

Ok.... and the in's and out's of the CAP has what to do with the French "rejecting the War on Terror"?

We got talking about creating an enviroment in which the French fester.

Ah, French bashers. Always brings a breath of fresh air to NSG when you read posts like that doesn't it? :rolleyes:

The French performance there doesn't impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.

Meh... I don't care much for the American preformance in Vietnam or Korea much either...

Ah, French bashers. Always brings a breath of fresh air to NSG when you read posts like that doesn't it? :rolleyes:

It's one of the Holy Trinity of the Right-Wing Persecution Complex:

Liberals, Muslims, and the French

The French performance there doesn’t impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.
Oh no! The French are bad at killing people. Such an unfortunate trait to lack. But don't worry, there's always the US administration to rely on.

Meh... I don't care much for the American preformance in Vietnam or Korea much either...

Yeah, they're all just hamburger-eating surrender monkeys!

:D

That was sarcasm, BTW.

The French performance there doesn't impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.

Well, you can't expect many people to be able to get it up under all the pressure. ;)

Good on the French!

It's also refreshing to see this kind of bullshit bashing torn up pretty quick, instead of laughed about and joined in.

It's one of the Holy Trinity of the Right-Wing Persecution Complex:

Liberals, Muslims, and the French

Vive Noam Chomsky! Allah c'est grand! :D

Good on the French!

It's also refreshing to see this kind of bullshit bashing torn up pretty quick, instead of laughed about and joined in.

Yeah, its so fashionable to bash france....if i was god everytime someone bashed france, they would be instantly teleported in front of napolean's army, wearing a prussian military uniform

Ah, French bashers. Always brings a breath of fresh air to NSG when you read posts like that doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Scan up a bit, I already said I generally like them. Someone mentioned Funding France and it reminded me of CAP, that's all.

Scan up a bit, I already said I generally like them. Someone mentioned Funding France and it reminded me of CAP, that's all.

I really wasn't directing my post to you but others who take the opportunity to see "France" in a thread and start swinging. Really now people, France isn't that much worse compared to other nations. At least they don't kill people in other nations in foreign actions anymore unlike other unnamed countries.

A war against an ideology cannot be fought with conventional (or nuclear :p) weapons. As a general rule the only way to prevent this kind of terrorism is to tackle the root cause, the grievance that the terrorists have. You say appeasement, I say understanding.

There haven't been Islamic fundamentalist attacks in France, a country that refused to take part in the war on terror, but there have been attacks (and suspected plots that have yet to lead to a single conviction) in the UK since they bent over for the Bush administration.

Never thought I'd say this, but it looks like France won this time round.

If you make someone die for their cause, you make them a martyr and strengthen whatever they're fighting for. Even worse in the case of America they've not only made martyrs of hundreds of thousands of civilians in their war on Islam, they have turned Iraq into a hotbed of international terrorism, whereas pre-"liberation" the only link between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists was that a good deal of them ended up in the ground. Saddam hated them.

Personally the only consistent justification I can find for the USes actions across the middle east has very little to do with terrorism and a great deal more to do with oil and idiotic zionism

Scan up a bit, I already said I generally like them. Someone mentioned Funding France and it reminded me of CAP, that's all.

Nothing shows the liking of the French like that signature.

Islamic terrorists - treat them as criminals or soldiers, that's the basic question, isn't it? Selective strikes on cells and individuals, or, alternatively, invade Iraq.

Nothing shows the liking of the French like that signature.

I hadn't set up my profile, v new here, and was reminded of the line. Regardless of liking them or not, it IS a very cool thing for a top politician to say. Better even than a Boris Johnson type line :)

it IS a very cool thing for a top politician to say. Better even than a Boris Johnson type line :)

Groundskeeper Willy is a top politician?

A war against an ideology cannot be fought with conventional (or nuclear :p) weapons. As a general rule the only way to prevent this kind of terrorism is to tackle the root cause, the grievance that the terrorists have. You say appeasement, I say understanding.

There haven't been Islamic fundamentalist attacks in France, a country that refused to take part in the war on terror, but there have been attacks (and suspected plots that have yet to lead to a single conviction) in the UK since they bent over for the Bush administration.

Never thought I'd say this, but it looks like France won this time round.

I agree with this

If you make someone die for their cause, you make them a martyr and strengthen whatever they're fighting for. Even worse in the case of America they've not only made martyrs of hundreds of thousands of civilians in their war on Islam, they have turned Iraq into a hotbed of international terrorism, whereas pre-"liberation" the only link between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists was that a good deal of them ended up in the ground. Saddam hated them.

I don't agree with this, if america was indeed declaring war on islam, world affairs would be MUCH worse think about 500 million people attacking us. The US and some European countries definetely have a problem with islamophobia, a poll in germany found that 43% of germans think muslims should wear visable ID of their religion(sound familiar?:rolleyes:) and a staggering 80% believe it should be illegal to build a mosque on german soil, but to say that the west has declared war on islam is ludicrous.

I stopped reading at "French parliament".

The French don't have a parliament.

Groundskeeper Willy is a top politician?

I thought he got it from Rummsfeld, that old guy Bush likes cos he likes war. But I think it would be good if Willy WAS a politician.

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.

:rolleyes: ME terrorism started in vietnam what utter bullshit, terrorist strategies were used in ancient combat. Pre-gunpowder
meet my friends the vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

A war against an ideology cannot be fought with conventional (or nuclear :p) weapons. As a general rule the only way to prevent this kind of terrorism is to tackle the root cause, the grievance that the terrorists have. You say appeasement, I say understanding.

There haven't been Islamic fundamentalist attacks in France, a country that refused to take part in the war on terror, but there have been attacks (and suspected plots that have yet to lead to a single conviction) in the UK since they bent over for the Bush administration.

Never thought I'd say this, but it looks like France won this time round.

If you make someone die for their cause, you make them a martyr and strengthen whatever they're fighting for. Even worse in the case of America they've not only made martyrs of hundreds of thousands of civilians in their war on Islam, they have turned Iraq into a hotbed of international terrorism, whereas pre-"liberation" the only link between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists was that a good deal of them ended up in the ground. Saddam hated them.

Personally the only consistent justification I can find for the USes actions across the middle east has very little to do with terrorism and a great deal more to do with oil and idiotic zionism

Well said Deep Kimchi. Spot on.

But I think it would be good if Willy WAS a politician.
If anything, he could clear up a lot of misleading Scottish stereotypes.

Excuse me while I rip off my clothes. Och Aye.

I agree with this



I don't agree with this, if america was indeed declaring war on islam, world affairs would be MUCH worse think about 500 million people attacking us. The US and some European countries definetely have a problem with islamophobia, a poll in germany found that 43% of germans think muslims should wear visable ID of their religion(sound familiar?:rolleyes:) and a staggering 80% believe it should be illegal to build a mosque on german soil, but to say that the west has declared war on islam is ludicrous.

Enter explanation about polls meaning anything pollster wants.

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

"Cheese eating surrender monkeys". The only good thing Mr Rummsfeld will be remembered for is that phrase.
And note to americans, terrorism existed in Europe for a very long time before 2001, honest. And the French were pretty good at sorting it out.
I'm not French, indeed am genetically predisposed to make war on them, but they're actually an OK bunch mostly.

Yeah, the French really did a number on those unarmed Greenpeace hippies.

I don't agree with this, if america was indeed declaring war on islam, world affairs would be MUCH worse think about 500 million people attacking us. The US and some European countries definetely have a problem with islamophobia, a poll in germany found that 43% of germans think muslims should wear visable ID of their religion(sound familiar?:rolleyes:) and a staggering 80% believe it should be illegal to build a mosque on german soil, but to say that the west has declared war on islam is ludicrous.

I didn't say that the whole west had declared war on Islam, though the scare-mongering that takes place regularly in the UK is definitely contributing to an increasing anti-Islamic feeling, but the US government is currently pushing an agenda that I really find it difficult to see as anything other than bashing Islam, helping out Israel and snatching some oil and construction contracts in the process.

Take the idea of nuclear non-proliferation for example. That now seems to mean non for Iran and proliferation for India. The US allowed the Israelis to continue to push into Lebanon and murder civilians by stalling any kind of move for a ceasefire. The events in south Lebanon and Palestine make the idea of a "war on terror" a joke as the US have been the single biggest supporter and protector of Israeli state terrorism since the nation was formed.

A war against an ideology cannot be fought with conventional (or nuclear :p) weapons. As a general rule the only way to prevent this kind of terrorism is to tackle the root cause, the grievance that the terrorists have. You say appeasement, I say understanding.

There haven't been Islamic fundamentalist attacks in France, a country that refused to take part in the war on terror, but there have been attacks (and suspected plots that have yet to lead to a single conviction) in the UK since they bent over for the Bush administration.

Never thought I'd say this, but it looks like France won this time round.

If you make someone die for their cause, you make them a martyr and strengthen whatever they're fighting for. Even worse in the case of America they've not only made martyrs of hundreds of thousands of civilians in their war on Islam, they have turned Iraq into a hotbed of international terrorism, whereas pre-"liberation" the only link between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists was that a good deal of them ended up in the ground. Saddam hated them.

Personally the only consistent justification I can find for the USes actions across the middle east has very little to do with terrorism and a great deal more to do with oil and idiotic zionism


Exactly my thoughts. Those dumbs ruling america are biting a bigger piece than they can swallow. This will bring the end of america if not stopped soon . Of course I dont give a damn about america, they lived their time it should sooner or later end but not now, every nation that has trade or other interests in america will be greatly dissapointed including my own if they collapse now. In the multipolar world an America with forseeable actions is necessary to bind some rather interesting treaties with other powers and maximize the profit :cool:

Hmm... Indochina? Suez? Algiers?

I don't suppose there is any point in explaining history to anyone who only reads the bits with America in them...

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.

You are joking right?

Hmm... Indochina? Suez? Algiers?

I don't suppose there is any point in explaining history to anyone who only reads the bits with America in them...

lets not enter that subject, we will end on agreeing that America is 4th Reich :D

Hmm... Indochina? Suez? Algiers?

I don't suppose there is any point in explaining history to anyone who only reads the bits with America in them...

Wow, if Dien Bien Phu is "French Success In Indochina"....

I didn't say that the whole west had declared war on Islam, though the scare-mongering that takes place regularly in the UK is definitely contributing to an increasing anti-Islamic feeling, but the US government is currently pushing an agenda that I really find it difficult to see as anything other than bashing Islam, helping out Israel and snatching some oil and construction contracts in the process.

Take the idea of nuclear non-proliferation for example. That now seems to mean non for Iran and proliferation for India. The US allowed the Israelis to continue to push into Lebanon and murder civilians by stalling any kind of move for a ceasefire. The events in south Lebanon and Palestine make the idea of a "war on terror" a joke as the US have been the single biggest supporter and protector of Israeli state terrorism since the nation was formed.

made martyrs of hundreds of thousands of civilians in their war on Islam,

a perfect example of how the expression of an argument can be more important than the actual point. Using phrases like "war on Islam" and "stupid Zionism" is asking for a knee-jerk. Next time just say "islamophobic scare-mongering"

Kodos, France. Glad to see the continuing dedication to... Erm... Sanity?

Aaaah... The sweet smell of ignorant French-bashing.

It's been at least a week since one of these thread came around :)

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.
Well if you want to look at it like that, consider the fact that after the French defeat, it took the US a whole decade to work up the courage to go in. And US resistance lasted about as long. :D

Yeah, the French really did a number on those unarmed Greenpeace hippies.

What do hippies have to do with it?

What do hippies have to do with it?

Just showing how effective French "action direct" can be.

Hmm... Indochina? Suez? Algiers?

I don't suppose there is any point in explaining history to anyone who only reads the bits with America in them...

I wish world history would be a required subject in american high schools, US history is so boring anyway...

well done France!

I wish world history would be a required subject in american high schools, US history is so boring anyway...

It is in my part of the US. Maybe you should move.

In fact, it's separated into European History and World History, as Europe is not the whole world either.

I wish world history would be a required subject in american high schools, US history is so boring anyway...

are you saying world history is not taught in US schools?

Islamic terrorists - treat them as criminals or soldiers, that's the basic question, isn't it? Selective strikes on cells and individuals, or, alternatively, invade Iraq.

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists, and was not a method to fight them. Saddam hated Islamic extremeists, and vice versa.

a poll in germany found that 43% of germans think muslims should wear visable ID of their religion(sound familiar?:rolleyes:) and a staggering 80% believe it should be illegal to build a mosque on german soil,

Well that just can't be right. What's the source?

Most of this is pretty much France's fault anyway, from being too incompetent to defend Vietnam, where Terrorism STARTED, to fucking up the borders in the Middle East, and to pretty much doing absolutely nothing to help with these problems.

All bullshit.

The French weren't defending Viet Nam, they were subjegating it, as we tried to do. Terrorism goes back thousands of years. The Viet Mihn weren't terrorists, they were the Viet Namese people, north and south, fighting back against a forgien invader. You left out how Britain fucked up Middle Eastern boarders, as well. Also, that 4 centuries of Ottoman occupation didn't do much to make the middle eastern world independent or economically viable. And the Brits and French (especially the brits) just made things worst.

So now, instead of just killing more innocent people, like the US, the French are recommitting themselves to the same policy that gave them victory against Algerian Islamic terrorists: strong, competent security force, and acculy GETTING RID of terrorism by getting rid of it's causes: poverty, political fundimentalism, lack of oportunity, harsh living conditions, ignorence, hatred.

Looks like the French have it spot on. Where as the American barbarians are off killing people and making more enemies then ever.

Aaaah... The sweet smell of ignorant French-bashing.

It's been at least a week since one of these thread came around :)

Just what I said. Some people have to have something to attack and France is a target for many. Too bad, I think attacking the religious right is much more fun. :)

are you saying world history is not taught in US schools?

He seems to be. Obviously never went to high school where I am in the US.

are you saying world history is not taught in US schools?

I am saying that it is not a required subject, you can graduate without taking it. However, if you ELECT to take it, you can.

get off my nuts

the French are recommitting themselves to the same policy that gave them victory against Algerian Islamic terrorists: strong, competent security force, and acculy GETTING RID of terrorism by getting rid of it's causes: poverty, political fundimentalism, lack of oportunity, harsh living conditions, ignorence, hatred.

Ah, by inviting the Algerians to be refugees in France.

And gosh, like there's No Terrorism In Algeria today. No sir. No roving bands of terrorists (Islamic Fundamentalists) running through towns before dawn, slitting throats.

No. Great job. Sure. Oh, I believe you.

Not.

Wow, if Dien Bien Phu is "French Success In Indochina"....

I'd argue that the French responded well. That battle, sure their military sucked, but they looked at the situation and thought "Hey, know what, I don't think these guys want us running their country anymore, let's leave em to it"

OK it went to shit then, but the principle of not trying to impose a random very foreign power on crap countries is, I think a good one.

(If you must know, I think ousting Saddam was right, we just fucked it up royally in the details/justification etc)

I am saying that it is not a required subject, you can graduate without taking it. However, if you ELECT to take it, you can.

get off my nuts

Not elective where I am.

Ah, by inviting the Algerians to be refugees in France.

And gosh, like there's No Terrorism In Algeria today. No sir. No roving bands of terrorists (Islamic Fundamentalists) running through towns before dawn, slitting throats.

No. Great job. Sure. Oh, I believe you.

Not.

I have never heard about bands of throat-slitting terrorists in algeria, it is possible especially in the south, can you give me a source.

are you saying world history is not taught in US schools?

Oh, it is. It's just absolute bullshit. They cover almost nothing in depth. What little they do cover in depth is all the junk about Europe that lead to America anyway, or the stereotypical "Ancient Egyptian/Greek/Roman" stuff that doesn't fully go into depth on any of those subjects. Our educational system is shit. I'm going to home school any kids I have.

Not elective where I am.

good for virginia but it is not so in michigan

in MI you must take 3 soc. studies classes and pass them to graduate,

pass psychology, sociology and government/economics, and you can graduate

I have never heard about bands of throat-slitting terrorists in algeria, it is possible especially in the south, can you give me a source.

Maybe a good American university can help you with your ignorance of Algerian terrorism.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/algeria.htm

Oh, it is. It's just absolute bullshit. They cover almost nothing in depth. What little they do cover in depth is all the junk about Europe that lead to America anyway, or the stereotypical "Ancient Egyptian/Greek/Roman" stuff that doesn't fully go into depth on any of those subjects. Our educational system is shit. I'm going to home school any kids I have.

Maybe where you live. Not here.

Ah, by inviting the Algerians to be refugees in France.

And gosh, like there's No Terrorism In Algeria today. No sir. No roving bands of terrorists (Islamic Fundamentalists) running through towns before dawn, slitting throats.

No. Great job. Sure. Oh, I believe you.

Not.

There's no Algerian terrorism in France anymore, was what I was driving at.
And a French invasion would hardly make Algeria any better. Christ, it wasn't that long that France gave them their independence.

Here's how I feel, both those on the left and on the right need to stop being so blind and emotional when they argue. One of you said this was a war on Islam, you said that the possibility of the US helping India with there program while being rough on Iran was an example of this. Not to be rude, but the current President of Iran stated that once Iran possesed nukes Israels day's would be numberd.....nothing new here I fear for Israel greatly but this is the typical anti-symitic rhetoric you get out of the leaders in the middle east. The real worry is in the same breath this man said that once Iran had nukes he'd give them to other countries fighting western imperialism, specifically naming the Sudan and Somalia. Wether you like it or not India would never givenukes up to basket case countries like Somalia or a gonicidal regime like Sudans. Now you on the right quit acting like the only thing that solves problems is bombs, it just doesn't work that way don't say you love america and freedom and then in the same breath say you'll bomb anybody who disagrees with you. Instead of wasting money on weapons that are of little use against terror. perhaps countries fighting "terror" should spend more money on foreign aid for hospitals, schools, access to clean water addressing the real origins of terror.

As far as I know some world history is required in UK, butwhich bits varies. However, my lessons did do meaningful stuff like tracing Hitler back to over the top punishment of Germany after WWI, at least as a large contributing factor. We even did the bit about Britain screwing up the borders in Palestine etc, although I suspect the root religious ideoligies both claiming some kind of divine right to own Jerusalem would always have caused trouble whatever anyone did post WWII.
And if you want ancient terrorists/freedom fighters, just look at the Peoples Front of Judea and the Campaign for Free Galilei

Maybe where you live. Not here.

I don't trust your opinion on the U.S. educational system. Considering the ignorance you've shown in this thread about the French and all that jazz, I think my taking it with a grain of salt, as it were, is warranted.

Well that just can't be right. What's the source?


it wasn't as bad as i thought, i only caught a glimpse of it on a news network :P heres the source:

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=30134

Here's how I feel, both those on the left and on the right need to stop being so blind and emotional when they argue. One of you said this was a war on Islam, you said that the possibility of the US helping India with there program while being rough on Iran was an example of this. Not to be rude, but the current President of Iran stated that once Iran possesed nukes Israels day's would be numberd.....nothing new here I fear for Israel greatly but this is the typical anti-symitic rhetoric you get out of the leaders in the middle east. The real worry is in the same breath this man said that once Iran had nukes he'd give them to other countries fighting western imperialism, specifically naming the Sudan and Somalia. Wether you like it or not India would never givenukes up to basket case countries like Somalia or a gonicidal regime like Sudans. Now you on the right quit acting like the only thing that solves problems is bombs, it just doesn't work that way don't say you love america and freedom and then in the same breath say you'll bomb anybody who disagrees with you. Instead of wasting money on weapons that are of little use against terror. perhaps countries fighting "terror" should spend more money on foreign aid for hospitals, schools, access to clean water addressing the real origins of terror.

A promising first post. Hope to see you around here oft. Welcome to NS General

I am saying that it is not a required subject, you can graduate without taking it. However, if you ELECT to take it, you can.

get off my nuts

well that explains some the viewpoints of many americans I've chatted with. Their ignorant, and I don't mean that as insult, they don't understand how the world sees them and why so many US politicians are out of touch with reality.

World history and Geography are mandatory here until University level so kids have a pretty good understanding of what's going on in the world and why.

Just what I said. Some people have to have something to attack and France is a target for many. Too bad, I think attacking the religious right is much more fun. :)

Like Fred Phelps? He's just... scary and creepy, like an evil anti-santa! Thin and without a beard, and faaaaar from jolly! :eek:

it wasn't as bad as i thought, i only caught a glimpse of it on a news network :P heres the source:

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=30134

That's......just horrible

British and German taxpayers fund the French though the Common agricultural policy.......
And French and Italian taxpayers fund the British through their silly rebate.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41256000/gif/_41256239_contributions3_gra416.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UKrebatefunding2004.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CAP2004beneficiaries.gif

That's......just horrible

are you being sarcastic...

i hope your not

Ah, by inviting the Algerians to be refugees in France.

And gosh, like there's No Terrorism In Algeria today. No sir. No roving bands of terrorists (Islamic Fundamentalists) running through towns before dawn, slitting throats.

No. Great job. Sure. Oh, I believe you.

Not. algeria is an independent country what has that got to do with France? the war in algeria began because the Islmaic party won a democratic election and the army took over. From what I know the war is now over, the Islmaic radicals lost popular support with their attacks.

And French and Italian taxpayers fund the British through their silly rebate.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41256000/gif/_41256239_contributions3_gra416.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UKrebatefunding2004.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CAP2004beneficiaries.gif

Not the place for this one, but all the numbers say the UK put's in a bunch more than it gets out, even after the rebate, which grinning Tony looks like using to buy presidency of the United States of Europe if it happens. I suspect Germany is the only country that might put even more net cash into Europe.

are you being sarcastic...

i hope your not

No, no sarcasm here. Just shock that the numbers are so high. I really do think it's aweful.

Like Fred Phelps? He's just... scary and creepy, like an evil anti-santa! Thin and without a beard, and faaaaar from jolly! :eek:

Isn't he a good target? Wacko religious types like him?

No, no sarcasm here. Just shock that the numbers are so high. I really do think it's aweful.

yeah, quite sad really, you'd think people would work out the logical fallacies of collective punishment by now...

Isn't he a good target? Wacko religious types like him?

Oh yes, very good targets. But he's too scary for my blood... He gives me the willies right proper!

I'd argue that the French responded well. That battle, sure their military sucked, but they looked at the situation and thought "Hey, know what, I don't think these guys want us running their country anymore, let's leave em to it"

OK it went to shit then, but the principle of not trying to impose a random very foreign power on crap countries is, I think a good one.

(If you must know, I think ousting Saddam was right, we just fucked it up royally in the details/justification etc)

"their military sucked"?? the Foreign Legion you're talking about, they were an elite fight force then, as they are now, and always have been. Battle hardened professional career soldiers(mercenarys), I'm sure you'll more than a few ex SAS, Green Berets, Ghurkas in their numbers. Speak with any military man in the world and they have the highest respect for the Legion.-their situation in Viet Nam was hopeless, out numbered, out gunned and surrounded.

Oh yes, very good targets. But he's too scary for my blood... He gives me the willies right proper!

Yeah, he'd probably be the type to accuse about everyone on NS of some heresy and burn us all on the stake. :(

France's commentary is so apt to the US that I am stunned at its eloquence. And the comments that one member made regarding France standing for nothing and appeasing all politicians only shows their complete ignorance toward history.

well that explains some the viewpoints of many americans I've chatted with. Their ignorant, and I don't mean that as insult, they don't understand how the world sees them and why so many US politicians are out of touch with reality.

World history and Geography are mandatory here until University level so kids have a pretty good understanding of what's going on in the world and why.

no insult taken, thats exactly why I want to make world history required.

Not the place for this one...
Well, there never was a place for the OP anyways, was there? :p
And since this is a general France-bashing thread, I think I might as well dispell some of the myths about the EU, CAP and France.

...but all the numbers say the UK put's in a bunch more than it gets out, even after the rebate...
So does France after CAP.

I suspect Germany is the only country that might put even more net cash into Europe.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41065000/gif/_41065272_net_pay_gra203.gif
http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3722828
http://www.economist.com/images/20050305/CEU503.gif

If you ask the neocons, there's no difference.

But, then again, neocons can't differentiate certain letters either.

Nor can they pronounce "nuclear." ;)

Ah, by inviting the Algerians to be refugees in France.

And gosh, like there's No Terrorism In Algeria today. No sir. No roving bands of terrorists (Islamic Fundamentalists) running through towns before dawn, slitting throats.

No. Great job. Sure. Oh, I believe you.

Not.

And how many people have they killed in the past 10 years? And as far as I know, the Eifel tower is still standing...

Of course there are terrorists. And there will always be terrorists. In ever single country on this planet there are terrorists. The question is, how much damage do they do? How dangerous are they? And to how many people?
And it would seem to me the the USA, contrary to the French, has not yet managed to lower the threat posed to them...

Yeah, he'd probably be the type to accuse about everyone on NS of some heresy and burn us all on the stake. :(

And I wouldn't want that to happen again. The last time was just not funny at all!

no insult taken, thats exactly why I want to make world history required.

even here I am sometimes apalled at how stupid some of our politicians are at world history and the causes of conflicts around the globe(maybe they didn't pay attention in class). Our current PM openly admitted that he knew nothing about international politics which you would think would be a minimum requirement to lead a country. A good knowledge of history, poly-sci,geography, law, morality, philosophy and some basic economics should be required of every politician. Add in a good dose of ethics as well.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41065000/gif/_41065272_net_pay_gra203.gif
http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3722828
http://www.economist.com/images/20050305/CEU503.gif

Fair enough. I still don't like CAP, and include in that British sheep farmers in some areas who make zero money from actual farming. But I am educated a bit more now, thank you.
No idea how we managed to wangle the rebate, but I'm glad we did. Maybe a bribe for signing something years ago. And the Dutch certainly seem to get a bad deal overall.
And I don't mind richer countries putting in more overall, I like the idea of more thriving trade partners once we get them up and running. Everyone wins.

"their military sucked"?? the Foreign Legion you're talking about, they were an elite fight force then, as they are now, and always have been. Battle hardened professional career soldiers(mercenarys), I'm sure you'll more than a few ex SAS, Green Berets, Ghurkas in their numbers. Speak with any military man in the world and they have the highest respect for the Legion.-their situation in Viet Nam was hopeless, out numbered, out gunned and surrounded.

No offence is meant here but the French Foreign Legion is a joke. A minority of a minority are ex special ops, I am a soldier and to be honest the legionarres I have met have not impressed me in the least. The legion isn't what it was during 50's although a brilliant fighting force a large proportion of it's soldiers should have been classified as war criminals (being X Waffen SS troop) nor is it the legion of the 80's when a large preportion of it's non frankaphone soldiers were British. The legion now at least the leggionares I have met are x-african and balcan nationals. Which means the French Foreign region draws it's man power indirectly from armed forces all over Africa, with perhaps the exeption of South Africa all the militaries in Africa are underfunded, have low moral poor training regime and some even suffer from inemic corruption. Allthough the men of the Balkans are strong warriors once again many that have joined the legion are war criminals under assumed identites. If you want to look at Frances army and talk about units that are worth while look at the Chasseurs alpins.

"their military sucked"?? the Foreign Legion you're talking about, they were an elite fight force then, as they are now, and always have been. Battle hardened professional career soldiers(mercenarys), I'm sure you'll more than a few ex SAS, Green Berets, Ghurkas in their numbers. Speak with any military man in the world and they have the highest respect for the Legion.-their situation in Viet Nam was hopeless, out numbered, out gunned and surrounded.

I meant the French military at that battle sucked. And without knowing anything about the detailed battle, I'll happily believe it was poor generals or supplies or whatever. Someone just put up that the modern legion isn't so hot. I have no knowledge either way. I do however, having come from a military family, have the utmost respect for the French military as a whole, now and historically. They are proper hard.
Enough random ranting for me tonight, thanks for keeping my mind going guys.

No idea how we managed to wangle the rebate, but I'm glad we did. Maybe a bribe for signing something years ago.
Pretty much. I mean, you can think of Thatcher whatever you want, but as a negotiator she was tough to beat.

Back then Britain was in a bad position economically. It was believed then that the extra contributions Britain would have to pay for joining the EU (or whatever predecessor it was then) were a bit much. So she managed to get a rebate worked out.

Problem was that as Britain got some funds from the EU and as their economy recovered and became as strong as it is, the rebate didn't get cancelled. The idea was always for the economically strong nations to pay so the weaker ones can get a leg up (and that has worked phenomenally well in Ireland now).
Overall it's not a bad system. The bad thing is that something like 45% of the EU budget is going to farmers. Farmers don't actually contribute anything to living standards or GDP anymore. That money could be spent so much better on other things, like Ireland demonstrated.

And if Turkey does join...well, have a guess how many underdeveloped poor farmers there are in Anatolia.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.

What did you expect from France? But by denying the war on terror, at least they don't have to formally surrender to Islamo-Nazi terrorism :p

Of course, they're informally doing that with every passing day.

Fortunately for the world, the red half of the US, at least, isn't in denial. This November we'll keep it that way for at least another two years :D

Pretty much. I mean, you can think of Thatcher whatever you want, but as a negotiator she was tough to beat.

Back then Britain was in a bad position economically. It was believed then that the extra contributions Britain would have to pay for joining the EU (or whatever predecessor it was then) were a bit much. So she managed to get a rebate worked out.

Problem was that as Britain got some funds from the EU and as their economy recovered and became as strong as it is, the rebate didn't get cancelled. The idea was always for the economically strong nations to pay so the weaker ones can get a leg up (and that has worked phenomenally well in Ireland now).
Overall it's not a bad system. The bad thing is that something like 45% of the EU budget is going to farmers. Farmers don't actually contribute anything to living standards or GDP anymore. That money could be spent so much better on other things, like Ireland demonstrated.

And if Turkey does join...well, have a guess how many underdeveloped poor farmers there are in Anatolia.farmers are the same everywhere, either the're complaining, too big a surplus of crops, foreign farmers are subsidised unfairly, not enough rain, too much rain and always we need more money. Problem is politicians are all afraid to say no to them because of fear of losing votes. Painfull truth is many farms in industrial countries are just to costly, it would be more cost effective if if third world countries did the bulk of the farming. But which politician wants to say that to their farmers.

Take the idea of nuclear non-proliferation for example. That now seems to mean non for Iran and proliferation for India. The US allowed the Israelis to continue to push into Lebanon and murder civilians by stalling any kind of move for a ceasefire. The events in south Lebanon and Palestine make the idea of a "war on terror" a joke as the US have been the single biggest supporter and protector of Israeli state terrorism since the nation was formed.

The fact that people don't quarrel with India is because India is the second largest Naion on the planet, soon expected to be the largest. It's Army is well trained, well armed and big. India is a military super power right up there with Chinawho coincidentally is nicely placed to keep China in check. Iran is a (relatively) small Islamic state.

And a small note on historic terrorism. Probably the world's single most effective 'terrorist' campaign was the one carried out by the *drumroll please* Spanish and Portuguese against Napoleon's army on the peninsula.

And a small note on historic terrorism. Probably the world's single most effective 'terrorist' campaign was the one carried out by the *drumroll please* Spanish and Portuguese against Napoleon's army on the peninsula.

The notion that terrorism is a new phenomenon is misguided, at best.

Again, I give you the Vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.



exactly.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I agree with him. So are you going to say I'm an "appeaser" who "hasn't stood for anything?" How are you going to dismiss my view, the same brush? Maybe a slightly different stroke, some idiot-comment assuming I'm a hippie liberal democrat?

I agree with him. So are you going to say I'm an "appeaser" who "hasn't stood for anything?" How are you going to dismiss my view, the same brush? Maybe a slightly different stroke, some idiot-comment assuming I'm a hippie liberal democrat?

yeah, i think that would be a good way to put it.

yeah, i think that would be a good way to put it.

If by "good" you mean "completely false," sure.

Whatever floats your little boat though. :)

If by "good" you mean "completely false," sure.

Whatever floats your little boat though. :)

if you think that going with the flow and dealing with problems as they arise is going to sovle anything in the long term, you are sadly mistaken.

If by "good" you mean "completely false," sure.

Whatever floats your little boat though. :)

For someone who misspelled Ahmedinejad as some jingostic Bushevik satire, he sure sounds more and more like Good Old Mahmoud, no?

For someone who misspelled Ahmedinejad as some jingostic Bushevik satire, he sure sounds more and more like Good Old Mahmoud, no?



definately spelled it wrong in my name because some other guy had the correct spelling already. and the correct spelling is Ahmadinejad, the 4th letter is an "a" not an "e."

The fact that people don't quarrel with India is because India is the second largest Naion on the planet, soon expected to be the largest. It's Army is well trained, well armed and big. India is a military super power right up there with Chinawho coincidentally is nicely placed to keep China in check. Iran is a (relatively) small Islamic state.

Obviosly you have done no independent research, heaps of countries have major quarrels with India, Pakistan(over Kashmir), Bangledesh(New Moore/South Talpatty Islands), Nepal (Greater India Dispute), China (Kargil crisis), and Sri Lanka (Tamil Inspired Terrorism)....wait a second that is every one of their neighbors except Bhutan has a quarrel with India, only one of which being China and maybe Pakistan can boast a better military capacity then Iran. Allthough Indias army is big the second or third largest in the world, training can at best be described as mediocre charecterized by far to much decision making up top with very little flexibility allowed for junior officers and NCO's. As for Indias military equipment, what can I say about Indias military equipment that cannot be said about most antique stores, there main battle tanks are T-72's and T-55 varients there APC's are hugly antiquated BMP-1's, there aircraft are also mostly antiquated MIG 29's and 27's being the largest components of the air force. At best I'd drescribe India as a military power, militarily they are no where near the likes of China Russia the US or even the topic of this thread for that matter France.

if you think that going with the flow and dealing with problems as they arise is going to sovle anything in the long term, you are sadly mistaken.

If you think that invading nations left and right and ignoring any problems (like Osama bin Laden) even when they arise is going to solve anything in the long term, you are mistaken.

But your cute little post is a strawman. I don't "go with the flow." I do however like to deal with problems as they arise. Shame on me for not ignoring them.

What did you expect from France? But by denying the war on terror, at least they don't have to formally surrender to Islamo-Nazi terrorism :p

Of course, they're informally doing that with every passing day.

Fortunately for the world, the red half of the US, at least, isn't in denial. This November we'll keep it that way for at least another two years :D


Would you care to respond to the points raised by my earlier comment? Otherwise just shoo....

Obviosly you have done no independent research, heaps of countries have major quarrels with India, Pakistan(over Kashmir), Bangledesh(New Moore/South Talpatty Islands), Nepal (Greater India Dispute), China (Kargil crisis), and Sri Lanka (Tamil Inspired Terrorism)....wait a second that is every one of their neighbors except Bhutan has a quarrel with India, only one of which being China and maybe Pakistan can boast a better military capacity then Iran. Allthough Indias army is big the second or third largest in the world, training can at best be described as mediocre charecterized by far to much decision making up top with very little flexibility allowed for junior officers and NCO's. As for Indias military equipment, what can I say about Indias military equipment that cannot be said about most antique stores, there main battle tanks are T-72's and T-55 varients there APC's are hugly antiquated BMP-1's, there aircraft are also mostly antiquated MIG 29's and 27's being the largest components of the air force. At best I'd drescribe India as a military power, militarily they are no where near the likes of China Russia the US or even the topic of this thread for that matter France.

Actually I've done plenty of independent research thank you very much. One only has to look at the Kargil Opperation to see how utterly false your description of the Indian Army is.

Furthermore saying their equipment is inadequate is somewhat suspect. The Indian Arny is replacing the T-72 with the T-90. Currently they are manufacturing c. 1000 units, although they only have just over 300 in service. I don't think this is what one would call an inadequate vehicle.

Yes those are the largest components of the air force... but also have very high number of Mirage2000 and SEPECAT Jaguar aircraft. Also far from inadequate and well, well out of the leagues of a state like Iran.

That's why I like the french. They're sane.

And why the hell you you ignorant fools have to bring up the riots every time you bash the French? For God's sake, they are French! They eat eat frogs legs and croisants and they strike and riot. It's what they do!

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.


Tell me...

How exactly do we fight a coventional war against an ideal?

How do we shoot jealousy?

Becuase really, thats what the Bush administration has been claiming to do since 9/12.

Its been six years almost and we still havent stamped out Al-Qeada, let alone "Terrorism" on a worldwide or even domestic scale.
Iraq is becoming a hopeless quaqmire, and even the capital city is in a state of near civil war.
Iraqi Defense forces arent being trained quickly enough, and those that are, have dubious loyalty issues.

We dont even know where Osama is.

Exactly how can we claim any morallly superior high ground when we have accomplished jack shit, since Hussein was removed from power?

Yes, the French are always the quickest to be effite, and arrogant, but, when even Canada doesnt want anymore to do with the mess we've made for ourselves, do we really want to play the "Freedom Fries" card?

Why cant the Right just admit this was a huge mistake from the start?

Tell me...

How exactly do we fight a coventional war against an ideal?

How do we shoot jealousy?


Here Here.

The french have been "fighting" algerian terrorists for years. Same as Britian has the IRA.
This is different to the american idea of fighting.
Using intelligence and arresting the perpertrators is not "appeasement" It's getting the problem and routing it out. Invading countries does not solve a problem.

Terrorism is an idea, not a physical object. Nobody can destroy an idea.

What did you expect from France? But by denying the war on terror, at least they don't have to formally surrender to Islamo-Nazi terrorism :p

ZOMG NAZIS

Gosh NM, you can't go two posts without comparing either Islam, terrorism, Europe, Liberals, or Democrats to Nazis. Nazis. ;)

I suspect this is rubber/glue tactics on your part from how everyone calls you a nazi when you preach hatred based on ethnicity and religion. Sadly it doesn't really work and you're reduced to cheerleading as you are now, since you know you don't convince anyone other than those who already suck up your ideology of anti-freedom. Oh well, your time to waste eh?

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists?
Yeah, those silly French bastards, always trying to fight the cause of a problem sensibly, by giving poor people aid and trying to improve the lives of those that have been wronged, instead of just blowing up the towelheads' houses, which has worked so well all over the Middle East, eh?


It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?
About two weeks...

And rioting is not terrorism, you fool.
No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler.
You mean "onoz they've tried to defuse problems around the world with words and simply not getting involved in things that are none of their business, instead of bombing anyone they disagree with", correct?
Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.
Yes, by killing their relatives, destroying their infrastructure, trying to force the US' ideals on people rather than letting them govern themselves, starving over a million to death in Afghanistan, making any Muslims coming into the US suffer an interview, and generally pissing people off over the world, the US is really chumming up with Muslims, aye?
The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner.
There are no leftists whatsoever in the US' government. If you mean "the democrats are being sensible rather than populist, racist and reactionary", correct.
Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it.
Or even better, give in, go home, leave these people alone and give them a massive apology and several billion dollars in aid to rebuild their country.

Because that would be the most sensible thing to do, by far, and would actually help to fight terrorism, rather than prolonging the problem by pissing people off enough so that they are willing to lose their lives in killing the people responsible for the problems that they face, no?
It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.
France have tackled the problem with Algerian terrorism gracefully and successfully.

The US has set itself up for several more September 11th-style attacks because of its irresponsibility in the Middle East and the disgust from everywhere else in the world.

It is truly amazing that just about every poster in this thread firmly believes that we can eradicate terrorism by spending more money on them. Wow! True liberals, all -- give them some more money and talk about their problems.

No, the only way to beat an enemy is to fight them so hard that they beg for a chance to surrender. The current 'war' is no exception. The problem is that we, in the United States, don't have the stomach to fight it properly, either. So, we'll play at it for a few more years until it bores us, then we'll declare victory and leave. We know how that turns out.

....No, the only way to beat an enemy is to fight them so hard that they beg for a chance to surrender. The current 'war' is no exception. The problem is that we, in the United States, don't have the stomach to fight it properly, either. So, we'll play at it for a few more years until it bores us, then we'll declare victory and leave. We know how that turns out.

right...

The problem is that you think that fighting those who are not yet your enemies will reduce the number of enemies....


It is like beating a sleeping tiger with a stick in order to kill the fleas in its fur, so that the fleas cannot bite you…

It seems the French are not the only ones rejecting "War on Terror". Some 100 of your own foreign policy specialists (http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html) are a bit iffy too

It is truly amazing that just about every poster in this thread firmly believes that we can eradicate terrorism by spending more money on them. Wow! True liberals, all -- give them some more money and talk about their problems.

No, the only way to beat an enemy is to fight them so hard that they beg for a chance to surrender. The current 'war' is no exception. The problem is that we, in the United States, don't have the stomach to fight it properly, either. So, we'll play at it for a few more years until it bores us, then we'll declare victory and leave. We know how that turns out.

this war is an exception, fighting an idea is impossible, how do you bomb anger?

this war is an exception, fighting an idea is impossible, how do you bomb anger?

Right, fighting this idea with bombs will only strengthen the idea

Actually the French haven't tried to appease terrorists, that's always been Britain's trick. France has been under threat of terrorism and they've dealt with it in a far less weak way than Britain. Look at the way Britain constantly allowed radical clerics to stay in London and spout whatever crap they like. We were always told that we have to let them stay because they'll be killed back home. The government never wanted to act because they didn't want to anger them. Now they're forced to confront it and even now they're still acting like pathetic cowards. The French methods of dealing with these people have been far more direct. They regularly deport dangerous militants and radical clerics back to countries where they know they'll be tortured. Their anti-terror laws are far more robust as well.

The only reason so many Americans are anti-French isn't a lack of strength, but rather too much of it. They weren't willing to bend over to do whatever America says and you call that weakness! The only weak country I can see at the moment is Britain.

It is truly amazing that just about every poster in this thread firmly believes that we can eradicate terrorism by spending more money on them. Wow! True liberals, all -- give them some more money and talk about their problems.
Um... So to you, the difference between using military strategy and law-enforcement strategy to combat terrorists is that in the first case you do something about the problems, but in the latter you only give money to your enemy?

Ah, right... You're one of them that sees "liberals" as a dirty word, and think that about half the population of the US wants to destroy America, aren't you.

Open your mind, guv. See that there is not just one way of doing things.

No, the only way to beat an enemy is to fight them so hard that they beg for a chance to surrender. The current 'war' is no exception. The problem is that we, in the United States, don't have the stomach to fight it properly, either. So, we'll play at it for a few more years until it bores us, then we'll declare victory and leave. We know how that turns out.
So you're saying that the war on terror isn't one that needs to be fought, since in a few years you can just give it up?

And how do you go about finding the enemies? And how do you go about fighting them (when you can't identify "them") so hard they beg for surrender when they don't fear death (the willingness to become martyrs through suicide attacks) without creating more enemies in the future? (They bombed my house and killed my family to take out my father. Me and my four brothers who survived will avenge them.)

Critical thinking is nice. Learn to ask questions :)

this war is an exception, fighting an idea is impossible, how do you bomb anger?

It's too simple for a liberal to consider. The Israelis know what to do and they were pursuing a successful strategy in Lebanon until the world started whining about it. The strategy is to make it unthinkable to harbor terrorists in your back yard. For Pakistan, that means patrolling and eliminating the camps in the western mountains. For Afghanistan, it means controlling the Taliban. For Lebanon, it means controlling the Hezzies. The threat of destruction has to be real for those governments that won't keep their back yards clean.

Our initial attacks worked so well that Libya, a long time sponsor of terrorism, gave it up. We scared Mohamar Quaddafi so badly that he just quit. We scared Syria into backing off in Lebanon.

The problem is, that we won't accept death and destruction as a part of a 'war' on terrorists. Not by our side, not by the enemy. We want it to be a clean 'war', like the one on poverty or drugs. Because we can't stand to see a mother weeping over her dead son on the evening news, we'll never accept the things that we need to do to win this 'war'.

Critical thinking is nice. Learn to ask questions :)

Can the smugness. It's the lack of action that has resulted in the situation we are in today. More lack of action will not make things better. Trying to sit down and discuss things isn't what is needed. That hasn't worked and it won't work. Not against an enemy that wants nothing less than our destruction.

It's too simple for a liberal to consider. The Israelis know what to do and they were pursuing a successful strategy in Lebanon until the world started whining about it.

which is why the northern part of their country is destroyed. Which is why all their neighboor countries are controlled by terrorists.

which is why the northern part of their country is destroyed. Which is why all their neighboor countries are controlled by terrorists.

And because they stopped to allow the Hezzies to re-arm, the country will be attacked again and again. They should have made Fuad what's-his-name in Lebanon so terrified of them, that he started doing the police work to keep the Hezzies under control. But that's not the case.

It's too simple for a liberal to consider. The Israelis know what to do and they were pursuing a successful strategy in Lebanon until the world started whining about it. The strategy is to make it unthinkable to harbor terrorists in your back yard. For Pakistan, that means patrolling and eliminating the camps in the western mountains. For Afghanistan, it means controlling the Taliban. For Lebanon, it means controlling the Hezzies. The threat of destruction has to be real for those governments that won't keep their back yards clean.
We don't have the military might to project that kind of power in every country that harbors or aids terrorists. Besides, if we start invading/policing/bombing terrorist camps in every country that we'd have to project force into in order to pursue that kind of policy, we'd be violating the sovereignty of so many countries that international opinion would be justified in calling us imperialist aggressors. We can't pursue a policy that turns every other country into the world into our enemy, we'd just end up screwing ourselves in the international community in order to fight an enemy that presents more threat to our lives than our country.

We don't have the military might to project that kind of power in every country that harbors or aids terrorists. Besides, if we start invading/policing/bombing terrorist camps in every country that we'd have to project force into in order to pursue that kind of policy, we'd be violating the sovereignty of so many countries that international opinion would be justified in calling us imperialist aggressors. We can't pursue a policy that turns every other country into the world into our enemy, we'd just end up screwing ourselves in the international community in order to fight an enemy that presents more threat to our lives than our country.
We don't have to. Read my comments about Libya. We haven't bombed Mohamar since the '80s. We just need to be a credible threat. We aren't now.

We don't have to. Read my comments about Libya. We haven't bombed Mohamar since the '80s. We just need to be a credible threat. We aren't now.

Right, a nuclear armed country with the largest military in the world, who has on average invaded and destroyed a country every 10 years, is not a threat....:rolleyes:

I'm fairly sure a man willing to blow himself up in a cafe is not to scared by the threat of force.

Can the smugness. It's the lack of action that has resulted in the situation we are in today. More lack of action will not make things better. Trying to sit down and discuss things isn't what is needed. That hasn't worked and it won't work. Not against an enemy that wants nothing less than our destruction.
Yeah, sounds like a grand idea. Let's charge in without a plan or a uniform strategy, kill everybody we think are our enemies even without any good intel, and let's do it alone - no reason to have allies in this fight.

:) You're silly. *is smug*

And no, it's not the lack of action. It's the wrong series of actions done throughout the last twenty years (maybe more). This didn't just happen by itself, you know.

Again, ask yourself: Why does people living on a different continent, barely making ends meet, barely surviving, want to destroy America? Where did that kind of thinking come from?
The Israelis know what to do and they were pursuing a successful strategy in Lebanon until the world started whining about it.
Yeah, 'cause Israel has done such a good job fighting terrorists during the last 40 years. Glad to see they've been using a strategy that's been working out.
It's too simple for a liberal to consider.
...and there you go, back into your black and white world of close-mindedness. Thank you, and have a good day making silly french-bashing threads.

*Blows a kiss*

We don't have to. Read my comments about Libya. We haven't bombed Mohamar since the '80s. We just need to be a credible threat. We aren't now.

We've invaded and occupied two other countries within the last five years and done so despite international condemnation of one of those invasions. The will of our leaders to act on their own with military force has been conclusively demonstrated. What else do we have to do, start publicly executing convicted terrorists and desecrating their remains just to say, "Don't fuck with us!"?

Terrorism is an idea, not a physical object. Nobody can destroy an idea.

If you commit genocide, you can.

The notion that terrorism is a new phenomenon is misguided, at best.

Again, I give you the Vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

I also pointed out in another thread that terrorism, especially state-sponsored proxies like Hezbollah, are no different from piracy.

And we already have laws about piracy, universally accepted as declaring all pirates to be the enemies of mankind.

If you commit genocide, you can.

there ya go, back to you old standby, turn the ME into a glass parking lot...

*insert "ah jeez not this shit again" picture here**

there ya go, back to you old standby, turn the ME into a glass parking lot...

*insert "ah jeez not this shit again" picture here**

It's a hypothetical. Are you afraid to discuss hypotheticals? And technically, it would work.

If you commit genocide, you can.

How can you be right, and so wrong at the same time

I also pointed out in another thread that terrorism, especially state-sponsored proxies like Hezbollah, are no different from piracy.

And we already have laws about piracy, universally accepted as declaring all pirates to be the enemies of mankind.

yeah, trouble is, pirates packed themselves together in convenient easy-to-bomb ships. Terrorists often hide among civilians or disguise themselves as innocent bystanders...

The French performance there doesn't impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.

The French havent performed well since 1871 when those silly Germans beat them for the first time :P


Nobody can destroy an idea.
Bet you a dollar, Comrade Winston?

How can you be right, and so wrong at the same time

Technical solutions often have that problem.

It's a hypothetical. Are you afraid to discuss hypotheticals? And technically, it would work.

What happens when every arab immigrant in the US becomes a terrorist?*

Also, theres still terrorists in india, our nuclear armed ally(bad idea to nuke india) and a ton of other countries...



*i live in dearborn, I would rather keep my house not set on fire thank you.

yeah, trouble is, pirates packed themselves together in convenient easy-to-bomb ships. Terrorists often hide among civilians or disguise themselves as innocent bystanders...

Actually, piracy, the high-seas sort, is starting to become a problem again. Pirates are known to attack cruise ships and large transport vessels, for much the same reason as the 1500's variety.
And considering that modern transports are MUCH more lightly armed (usually only one or two people of the very small crew have any sort of firearms), their jobs are much easier. And its virtually impossible to track them, even now, the ocean is a big place.
I think something like 4 ships 'dissapear' each year, with more being attacked. I cant remember the exact number though.

What happens when every arab immigrant in the US becomes a terrorist?*

Genocide is not just nuclear destruction.

Forced sterilization, rounding up in camps...

You must have skipped that day in class when they talked about the Wannsee Conference...

While morally repugnant (to say the least), it very nearly succeded. If Germany had not lost the war, it would have been shockingly effective at least in Europe.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11659255']Actually, piracy, the high-seas sort, is starting to become a problem again. Pirates are known to attack cruise ships and large transport vessels, for much the same reason as the 1500's variety.
And considering that modern transports are MUCH more lightly armed (usually only one or two people of the very small crew have any sort of firearms), their jobs are much easier. And its virtually impossible to track them, even now, the ocean is a big place.
I think something like 4 ships 'dissapear' each year, with more being attacked. I cant remember the exact number though.

Still, it is possible to target these tiny boats (once found) without killing non-pirates.

If you target the non-pirates they will become pirates.

If you target the non-pirates they will become pirates.

Bullshit.

Still, it is possible to target these tiny boats (once found) without killing non-pirates.

If you target the non-pirates they will become pirates.

The trouble is, theres a jillion square miles of ocean to look in, and even IF a vessel gets a radio call out, chances are there isnt a naval vessel or other armed craft within a hundred miles.
Even in coastal areas, your generally talking several hundred, or even thosand, miles of coastline to search for that little bay where the pirates boat is hidden, and even THEN, you cant PROVE they are the pirates, because in all likelyhood they have a Generic FishBoat-5000.

The other problem is that once a pirate attack is underway, there is no way to stop it unless the crew of the ship does it. Most cargo ships dont have official uniforms, so once the pirates are onboard things can get very confusing, and you can exactly launch a cruise missile at a pirate ship now, since: a. Theyre tiny, and b. Theyre too close to the ones your trying to save.

Bah, silly French, they clearly don't understand the semantics of the matter.

We Americans use the word war much more often than most other people do, and with a different sort of meaning than most other people. War on Poverty, War on Crime, War on Drugs: These are all examples of our various meanings of the term 'war', which to us denotes more than just aggressive violence, instead, to Americans it may also indicate a concerted effort, a driven push to effect a change. Despite the higher profile bits and pieces of the 'War on Terrorism', it's a much more low intensity conflict that's being waged on a broad-based multinational platform. American advisors in The Phillipines, work on non-proliferation, hardening of potential targets and cooperation to identify potential terrorist groups (including those that target our enemies as well) are all important parts of what is being called the 'War on Terror.' Not just conventional military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11659255']Actually, piracy, the high-seas sort, is starting to become a problem again. Pirates are known to attack cruise ships and large transport vessels, for much the same reason as the 1500's variety.
And considering that modern transports are MUCH more lightly armed (usually only one or two people of the very small crew have any sort of firearms), their jobs are much easier. And its virtually impossible to track them, even now, the ocean is a big place.
I think something like 4 ships 'dissapear' each year, with more being attacked. I cant remember the exact number though.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that has happened once, off the coast of Somalia.

"Cheese eating surrender monkeys". The only good thing Mr Rummsfeld will be remembered for is that phrase.
It wasn't even his phrase either. He stole it off Willie the groundskeeper.

Bonjourrrrrrrr (http://www.wunderkraut.com/sounds/simpsons/willie/willyfrench.wav)

It happens more than you would think, I beleive (cant find a source for it though) that South America is one of the heaviest piracy spots. Makes sense if you think about it.
Larger numbers of tourists + lots of undeveloped and lightly patrolled coast = Piracy fun.
Its sort of like the child kidnappings and such, you only see them on the news because something more interesting didnt happen.

Kudos for you for attempting to turn a "let's fight this with intelligence as opposed to firing nukes where we see fit" discourse into an "I love terrorists" discourse. Really, really good work there, I'm impressed.
Haven't you realised yet: If you not with them, you're against them.

This is how you should be reacting:

Myrmidonisia: Whose side are you on, son?
Heikoku: Our side, sir.
Myrmidonisia: Don't you love your country?
Heikoku: Yes, sir.
Myrmidonisial: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Heikoku: Yes, sir.
Myrmidonisia: Son, all that's ever asked of us is that we obey Bush commands as they would the word of God. We are there to help the towelheads, because inside every camel-jockey there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Heikoku: Aye-aye, sir.

lets not enter that subject, we will end on agreeing that America is 4th Reich :D

You're back!

Why do people not like the French? Is it only because they refused to risk their lives for stupid cause of Iraq?

Why do people not like the French? Is it only because they refused to risk their lives for stupid cause of Iraq?

I know! It's not like America has any right to hate Frace! We Brits have been at war with France at least ten times in the last one thousand years!

It is truly amazing that just about every poster in this thread firmly believes that we can eradicate terrorism by spending more money on them. Wow! True liberals, all -- give them some more money and talk about their problems.

No, the only way to beat an enemy is to fight them so hard that they beg for a chance to surrender. The current 'war' is no exception. The problem is that we, in the United States, don't have the stomach to fight it properly, either. So, we'll play at it for a few more years until it bores us, then we'll declare victory and leave. We know how that turns out.

You still havent answered any of the points I raised.

And when you mean "we" you must mean the people who have to go out and do it. As oppossed to you. You obviously have the guts required to expect others to fight it "properly".

Trilby63;11659550']I know! It's not like America has any right to hate Frace! We Brits have been at war with France at least ten times in the last one thousand years!

We should be grateful for them bailing our ass out during the revolutionary war...

You still havent answered any of the points I raised.

And when you mean "we" you must mean the people who have to go out and do it. As oppossed to you. You obviously have the guts required to expect others to fight it "properly".

'We' never get tired of making assumptions, do we. Targeting civilians is something that I've never had to do. That's something I'm glad for. But I don't think that would have changed my actions in the least. The Iraqis that I bombed in the 'Oil War' were not much more than civilians, after all.

I just think that my position is realistic. Force and the threat of force is something that is understood. Diplomacy works well with civilized people, but we're not dealing with those sorts. At least not by 21st century standards.

I just think that my position is realistic. Force and the threat of force is something that is understood. Diplomacy works well with civilized people, but we're not dealing with those sorts. At least not by 21st century standards.

threat of force is meaningless to someone who is trying to be killed...

'We' never get tired of making assumptions, do we. Targeting civilians is something that I've never had to do. That's something I'm glad for. But I don't think that would have changed my actions in the least. The Iraqis that I bombed in the 'Oil War' were not much more than civilians, after all.

I just think that my position is realistic. Force and the threat of force is something that is understood. Diplomacy works well with civilized people, but we're not dealing with those sorts. At least not by 21st century standards.

Your position is hardly realistic, because it hasn't and cannot work. The French method did. Something you've avoided going back to since the OP.

It's too simple for a liberal to consider. The Israelis know what to do and they were pursuing a successful strategy in Lebanon until the world started whining about it.

Damn that evil, whining, "liberal" world. We need to show those people of Earth a lesson! What could we do... hypothetically... to prove we have big, sweaty internet balls?

If you commit genocide, you can.

I know! Advocate genocide! YEAH GENOCIDE!

It's a hypothetical.

...hypothetically, of course. Hypothetically advocating hypothetical genocide will teach that hypothetically liberal world.

...hypothetically, of course. Hypothetically advocating hypothetical genocide will teach that hypothetically liberal world.
These hypothesese are really getting on my metaphorical tits.

You're back!

Well after a good sunny holiday its good to return to politics.

Todays american propaganda is claiming every slightly darker colored person and muslim is a potential terrorist. It was done to japanese people at WW2, it was done to indians, it was done to blacks, it was done to women(burning as witches), it was done to books(alice in wonderland was found to be obscene and parents burned whole piles of them), it was done to homosexuals (aids), it was done to their own troops (lsd), its own agents(CIA scenarios were tried out and entire bureaus of agents were killed), rising democratic leaders of third world to keep them in a hell of internal struggle and civil war(assasinations are even documented) etc etc and etc.

'Every arab is a terrorist' today in the eyes of every WASP neocon dictator . As every black was a rapist in those good old days of america! Thats the point where fear fed and crazed american massess will one day accept. Just keep the news coming and feed the hate...then who will be the führer? Arnold Schwarzenegger perhaps, a good austurian :cool: If you wasnt to become fascist at leas do it right and pick a charismatic leader.

the French are a bunch of wack job surrender monkeys..so whats new about them rejecting the war on terror...it has the word WAR in it ..:D

the French are a bunch of wack job surrender monkeys..so whats new about them rejecting the war on terror...it has the word WAR in it ..:D

A joke about French cowardice...that's original...

A joke about French cowardice...that's original...

Wait, I thought jokes had to have at least one funny in them.

Wait, I thought jokes had to have at least one funny in them.

Successful ones do.

the French are a bunch of wack job surrender monkeys..so whats new about them rejecting the war on terror...it has the word WAR in it ..:D

Yeah that's... real amusing... I tell you I might hurt myself or something I'm laughing so hard... yeah...

Trilby63;11659550']I know! It's not like America has any right to hate Frace! We Brits have been at war with France at least ten times in the last one thousand years!

Well I tend to despise the French government policies, but not the French people. The overregulation of their economy, their demands of cultural assimilation, their cultural isolationism, their habit of taking a position antagonistic to America just to define themselves as different, even if that position might be wrong and their damnable cigarettes. Fucking Gauloise Cigarettes that smell so damn bad that they smoked outside of my dorm room window freshman year.

Successful ones do.

Most Americans think that French surrender jokes are funny.

Most Americans think that French surrender jokes are funny.

Then again, most people are idiots.

Then again, most people are idiots.

I'm not big on the surrender jokes, but I have plenty of Greenpeace jokes.

Well I tend to despise the French government policies, but not the French people. The overregulation of their economy, their demands of cultural assimilation, their cultural isolationism, their habit of taking a position antagonistic to America just to define themselves as different, even if that position might be wrong and their damnable cigarettes. Fucking Gauloise Cigarettes that smell so damn bad that they smoked outside of my dorm room window freshman year.


I like the way foreign policy is handled by the french. Their internal doings, however is another story.

and they all get like 8 weeks paid vacation:mad: :upyours: :headbang:

Most Americans think that French surrender jokes are funny.

It's funny if it WORKS. I mean, even I that despise jingoism see what's funny about "French advance" meaning "retreat", but this particular joke was just sad.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.

Ahh but France's population is 20% muslim and growing very fast!

Ahh but France's population is 20% muslim and growing very fast!

ok....whats your point?

Ahh but France's population is 20% muslim and growing very fast!

Okay, folks, here we see an example on explaining ignorance ("Fighting them with intelligence is BAD!") with prejudice ("Muslims support terror.").

Okay, folks, here we see an example on explaining ignorance ("Fighting them with intelligence is BAD!") with prejudice ("Muslims support terror.").

I don't know, maybe he means that if france faught terrorism militarily it could radicalize the muslim population....I'm waiting for his response

It's funny if it WORKS. I mean, even I that despise jingoism see what's funny about "French advance" meaning "retreat", but this particular joke was just sad.

Am I the only one who thinks that Napoleon's "advance" from Moscow to Paris was really funny?

Am I the only one who thinks that Napoleon's "advance" from Moscow to Paris was really funny?

In this crowd? I don't think they can appreciate humor. Not unless they're making fun of some cracker from Georgia, anyway.

Am I the only one who thinks that Napoleon's "advance" from Moscow to Paris was really funny?

Yeah...Borodino was a total hoot!

Yeah...Borodino was a total hoot!

Well, I'm sure Russians think it's hilarious.

Well, I'm sure Russians think it's hilarious.

Rightly so. Even managed to get a decent piece of music out of it to boot!

Am I the only one who thinks that Napoleon's "advance" from Moscow to Paris was really funny?

Meh. I like the backstory better, of how the mighty army got screwed over by climate. :p

the majority of terrorists are muslims and thats a definite fact! 17-40 year old muslim males.

the majority of terrorists are muslims and thats a definite fact! 17-40 year old muslim males.

thats up for dispute. The majority of terrorists that have attacked the West are muslims, thats for sure.

That still doesn't prove that all or the majority of muslims are terrorists. As you are insinuating.

The french, more concerned with being free and right than safe, have traded their security for their liberty and paid the real cost of freedom.

thats up for dispute. The majority of terrorists that have attacked the West are muslims, thats for sure.

That still doesn't prove that all or the majority of muslims are terrorists. As you are insinuating.

i would say that im talking about 1% of mslims, not the majority

Kudos for you for attempting to turn a "let's fight this with intelligence as opposed to firing nukes where we see fit" discourse into an "I love terrorists" discourse. Really, really good work there, I'm impressed.

Only, not.

I love the dialogue there. Almost made you sound like you'd hit your tweens. Seriously, grow up. Or let the big boys discuss the important issues.

And "kudos" on taking a well-reasoned point and trying to dismiss is as hate-mongering. Either defend against the point, or just shut up and stay out of the way. Childish posts like this really are tiresome.

thats up for dispute. The majority of terrorists that have attacked the West are muslims, thats for sure.

That still doesn't prove that all or the majority of muslims are terrorists. As you are insinuating.

However, that does make them the largest terrorist threat to the West, in that case. So alienating 20% of your population would be stupid. However, what do you do when there is such a large local pool of possible enemies hiding among law-abiding Muslims?


Because having a large percentage of the population be Muslim would definitely make it easier for terrorists to blend in. That's common logic.

If you commit genocide, you can.
Didn't work in Afghanistan, the Taliban are still active even though the US starved c. 1 million people to death.

Well I tend to despise the French government policies, but not the French people. The overregulation of their economy, their demands of cultural assimilation, their cultural isolationism, their habit of taking a position antagonistic to America just to define themselves as different, even if that position might be wrong and their damnable cigarettes. Fucking Gauloise Cigarettes that smell so damn bad that they smoked outside of my dorm room window freshman year.
Aye, on the other hand, they saved your arse from the Brits both times you had a proper scuffle with us.

I love the dialogue there. Almost made you sound like you'd hit your tweens. Seriously, grow up. Or let the big boys discuss the important issues.

And "kudos" on taking a well-reasoned point and trying to dismiss is as hate-mongering. Either defend against the point, or just shut up and stay out of the way. Childish posts like this really are tiresome.

You see, if you had took the time out of your busy schedule to read all my posts, and all of the other posts by those that agree with me you'd realize that we DID make a few points about how the French strategy is being much more effective. But, with the bloodlust typical of the average neocon, they decide to shout war and want power. Very well, only that comes at a steep price, not to mention being morally reprehensible. France is within her right to determine an intelligent counterterrorist measure set. The United States are not within their right to attack whichever sovereign nation they please with the excuse of "rooting out terrorists", even because that produces more terrorists. Which can, in turn, be used to fuel the endless war state that Bush is so intent in producing, allowing his Party (and any reference to 1984 here is not a coincidence) to perpetuate itself in power. Only, when France provides an effective alternative, the neocons get furious, because it challenges, with advantages, the world state they long for. It is hatemongering, for it bleats "surrender monkeys" when they suggest an approach to fighting terror that is not based on mass murder as your leader so wishes. It is not a reasoned point, for I have yet to see any logical and factual basis behind the claim that the US approach is more effective. Indeed, so far all that's been concluded is that the approach of the Republicans produces about three terrorists for each one it kills, whereas France's produces zero terrorists for each one it captures to generate credible intelligence (as opposed to the one generated by torture, in which the subject will say anything to make it stop) to root out more terrorists.

Do you have any objections that are based on fact and logics now, or should I let you go?

Ah... le crazy french peoples! VIVE LA FRANCE!!!!111 :eek:

However, that does make them the largest terrorist threat to the West, in that case. So alienating 20% of your population would be stupid. However, what do you do when there is such a large local pool of possible enemies hiding among law-abiding Muslims?


Because having a large percentage of the population be Muslim would definitely make it easier for terrorists to blend in. That's common logic.

agreed. But advocating the death of as many random muslims as died in the WTC attacks is not.

Didn't work in Afghanistan, the Taliban are still active even though the US starved c. 1 million people to death.

Indeed, I cannot help but notice it became MORE active after that. Mmm. Perhaps it is caused by the fact that people get a bit miffed when their loved ones are starved to death by a foreign power, and that people get a bit more radical when they're put in economical misery?

Hard to tell, but until the neocons display some common sense, I will treat them as people that lack it.

agreed. But advocating the death of as many random muslims as died in the WTC attacks is not.

I have a problem with your "as many" remark.

Considering that, by now, more than ten times "as many" random muslims died in Iraq as the number of people that died in WTC and in the Pentagon put together, I find it a bit off-mark to say "as many", is it not?

I have a problem with your "as many" remark.

Considering that, by now, more than ten times "as many" random muslims died in Iraq as the number of people that died in WTC and in the Pentagon put together, I find it a bit off-mark to say "as many", is it not?

Yes, but that was not my point. I was alluding to the vengeance nuts in america that think we should take 3,000 if not every muslim in america and publicly execute them. They believe someone can be guilty by religious association.

Yes, but that was not my point. I was alluding to the vengeance nuts in america that think we should take 3,000 if not every muslim in america and publicly execute them. They believe someone can be guilty by religious association.

People never cease to amaze me. Are there actual people that believe that?
*Watches as Deep Kimchi walks by along with New Mitanni*

Oh, hello, how are you two today? Anyways, are there actual people that believe that, mr. Pyotr?

Actually I've done plenty of independent research thank you very much. One only has to look at the Kargil Opperation to see how utterly false your description of the Indian Army is.

Furthermore saying their equipment is inadequate is somewhat suspect. The Indian Arny is replacing the T-72 with the T-90. Currently they are manufacturing c. 1000 units, although they only have just over 300 in service. I don't think this is what one would call an inadequate vehicle.

Yes those are the largest components of the air force... but also have very high number of Mirage2000 and SEPECAT Jaguar aircraft. Also far from inadequate and well, well out of the leagues of a state like Iran.

First off replacing T-72's with T-90's means the largest componant of the Indian armour corp remains the antiquated T72 basically the same tank as entered production in 1971 except with crap upgrades that wouldn't stand against American or most western European Tanks from the same era. As for the T-90 it is highly questionable wether this tank is at all good one needs to only look at it this way, it was made in 93 and the only countries now using it 11 years later are the Russians, the Algerians and Indians, if there are more tell me about it but so far no one wants to buy it because it's crap. As for the Mirage 2000's, they are crap even the newer version Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 is crap and India doesn't even own these ones, they were built as an anwer to the F-16 yet the F-16 is still considered the better aircraft. As for the jaguars if you were telling the truth about your research you would realize that india is planning to scrap the whole fleet and replace them with typhoons or refaels. Next time you buck up do some reading son

First off replacing T-72's with T-90's means the largest componant of the Indian armour corp remains the antiquated T72 basically the same tank as entered production in 1971 except with crap upgrades that wouldn't stand against American or most western European Tanks from the same era. As for the T-90 it is highly questionable wether this tank is at all good one needs to only look at it this way, it was made in 93 and the only countries now using it 11 years later are the Russians, the Algerians and Indians, if there are more tell me about it but so far no one wants to buy it because it's crap. As for the Mirage 2000's, they are crap even the newer version Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 is crap and India doesn't even own these ones, they were built as an anwer to the F-16 yet the F-16 is still considered the better aircraft. As for the jaguars if you were telling the truth about your research you would realize that india is planning to scrap the whole fleet and replace them with typhoons or refaels. Next time you buck up do some reading son

Saying they are planning to scrap the fleet and replace them with typhoons only further illustrates my point. Next time buck up and use some logic son.

Saying they are planning to scrap the fleet and replace them with typhoons only further illustrates my point. Next time buck up and use some logic son.

Your a moron Dyelli one thing thats all you got, the fact is there scrapping there jaguars what other medium combat aircraft would you suggest they make the replacement with. I agree the typhoon is unlikly but it better than the rafael or anything they are going to get from Russia, America is certainly not going to give them shit so how bout you use some logic ya batti.

Jeesh, both of you just take a chill pill and come back to the thread later on.
:fluffle:

Gentlemen, I am sure the discussion about the military of India is a fascinating one, but perhaps you could create a topic for that purpose?

Total of zero replys to that Foreign Policy bit I posted. Was it utter shit? I mean, I know NSG people know all about foreign relations... but not ONE comment..?
Once again: http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html

Jeesh, both of you just take a chill pill and come back to the thread later on.
:fluffle:

Or create another one...

Total of zero replys to that Foreign Policy bit I posted. Was it utter shit? I mean, I know NSG people know all about foreign relations... but not ONE comment..?
Once again: http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html

I read it. Thought it very eye opening though at the same time not surprising- sadly not fun preaching to the converted is it? :D

Total of zero replys to that Foreign Policy bit I posted. Was it utter shit? I mean, I know NSG people know all about foreign relations... but not ONE comment..?
Once again: http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html

Allow me to make a comment then.

Neocons,

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Gentlemen, I am sure the discussion about the military of India is a fascinating one, but perhaps you could create a topic for that purpose?

Sorry my bad, it's just this whole thread went wonky long ago I was acctually responding to something from yesturday, I just get pissed with people that talk shit and have nothing to back it up.:mp5:

Oh, aye. My posts have been noticed. That's what counts. Pretentious ass as I am...

Gentlemen, really, kindly proceed with your argument in another thread...

Indeed, I cannot help but notice it became MORE active after that. Mmm. Perhaps it is caused by the fact that people get a bit miffed when their loved ones are starved to death by a foreign power, and that people get a bit more radical when they're put in economical misery?

Hard to tell, but until the neocons display some common sense, I will treat them as people that lack it.
Hmm... could it be?

Can the smugness. It's the lack of action that has resulted in the situation we are in today. More lack of action will not make things better. Trying to sit down and discuss things isn't what is needed. That hasn't worked and it won't work. Not against an enemy that wants nothing less than our destruction.

That is the biggest pile of bullshit in this entire thread.

What "got us intio this mess today" was NOT thinking about what we (our government) was doing.

It took an idiot asshole son of an oil-man, who decided not to listen to common sense, and make the mistake his own father was not willing to make without an exit strategy.

The entire world said "wait...lets try peaceful methods to disarm Iraq", we said "Fuck that...YEEEHAH!", and now you see the mess we are in.

It wasnt attempts to negioiate that landed is where we are, it was Neocon greed, and warmongering, and plain stupidity.

You can ride that tired pony all you like, but the truth, and wich side had it, is plain to see by the failure that is this farcicle "war on terror", and the debacle that is Iraq.

Blame the Liberals all you want, but its the Conservatives who will rightfully lose the next elections.

Your a moron Dyelli one thing thats all you got, the fact is there scrapping there jaguars what other medium combat aircraft would you suggest they make the replacement with. I agree the typhoon is unlikly but it better than the rafael or anything they are going to get from Russia, America is certainly not going to give them shit so how bout you use some logic ya batti.

You sure as hell aren't the expert you claim yourself to be.

The Mirage 2000-9 is the most recent version of the aircraft, this version being sent to the UAE. Most of the nations that use the aircraft are nations with pretty high tech equipment, like egypt(m1a1's, etc), Greece(flown alongside F-16's), Taiwan(again, alongside F-16's), UAE(LeClercs), etc. While many low tech nations purchase the F-16, as well as higher tech nations who buy newer versions. They are quite neck and neck in capability, pilot ability and force multipliers are much more important in their effectiveness, than comparing their respective specs.

The Indians have used them very effectively against pakistan, who has F-16's. The Mirage 2000's have proven their worth for sure with india. India also used the Su-30MKI, which will pretty much outfly anything used by china or pakistan.

Same thing with the T-90's. Upgraded with french sights, etc, they will outmatch most of what is used by china and pakistan. Probably not up to the quality of latest western MBT's, but nothing to exactly scoff at.

They aren't nearly as worried about replacing the Jaguar, as they are about replacing the Mig21.The Mirage was seen as a leading plane to be purchased, before dassault pulled the offer, and offered the Ralale instead.

Also, the united states has been offering the F-18E/F to India, countering your claims that the us wouldn't give them anything.

Finally, to simply say that the typhoon is better than the Rafale is laughable. Thats highly contested throughout the world, with the Rafale doing better in South Korea and Indonesia, if I remember the two nations correctly, than the Typhoon. The Rafale is also developed for different things than the Typhoon. The typhoon will never be a carrier-based aircraft, for starters.

Actually, that wasn't the final statement. Calling people morons is not a way to make yourself seem intelligent, nor is your incorrect information.

You sure as hell aren't the expert you claim yourself to be.

The Mirage 2000-9 is the most recent version of the aircraft, this version being sent to the UAE. Most of the nations that use the aircraft are nations with pretty high tech equipment, like egypt(m1a1's, etc), Greece(flown alongside F-16's), Taiwan(again, alongside F-16's), UAE(LeClercs), etc. While many low tech nations purchase the F-16, as well as higher tech nations who buy newer versions. They are quite neck and neck in capability, pilot ability and force multipliers are much more important in their effectiveness, than comparing their respective specs.

The Indians have used them very effectively against pakistan, who has F-16's. The Mirage 2000's have proven their worth for sure with india. India also used the Su-30MKI, which will pretty much outfly anything used by china or pakistan.

Same thing with the T-90's. Upgraded with french sights, etc, they will outmatch most of what is used by china and pakistan. Probably not up to the quality of latest western MBT's, but nothing to exactly scoff at.

They aren't nearly as worried about replacing the Jaguar, as they are about replacing the Mig21.The Mirage was seen as a leading plane to be purchased, before dassault pulled the offer, and offered the Ralale instead.

Also, the united states has been offering the F-18E/F to India, countering your claims that the us wouldn't give them anything.

Finally, to simply say that the typhoon is better than the Rafale is laughable. Thats highly contested throughout the world, with the Rafale doing better in South Korea and Indonesia, if I remember the two nations correctly, than the Typhoon. The Rafale is also developed for different things than the Typhoon. The typhoon will never be a carrier-based aircraft, for starters.

Actually, that wasn't the final statement. Calling people morons is not a way to make yourself seem intelligent, nor is your incorrect information.


India has only 22 Mirage of the newest variety 10 D's and 12 5's. If I said that the F-16 was better I apolagize, however being neck in neck is not impressive perhaps you being the expert can tell me when the mirage entered production and when the F-16 did, the fact that the Mirage is more advanced technologically owes to it being produced nearly a decade later. As for the mirages results against the Pakistanis, this has allot more to do with Pakistani over reliance on ground communication and control and far better training on the part of the Indians. The reason the F-16 is better is because it is cheaper and far easier, cheaper quicker to maintain just look at nations that employ both variants this becomes quickly apparent, Greece 170 F-16's to it's oh 50 or so mirages, Egypt has 220 F-16's to its 16 mirages, no one is even looking to get rid of them. If they arn't worried about replacing the jaguars why are they doing it, I never said they didn't want to replace the Mig's either. I will scoff at the T-90 because what is the point in making a tank that is no mach whatsoever to the tank of your competitors. I will concede the deal between India and the states is a reality thank you for directing my attention to it. Your point about the rafael is utterly bollocks sure I'm not hearing some national pride there Frenchym, what the hell do you mean it did better in Indonesia and South Korea what an ambiguous statement. The Indians wouldn't be using the rafele for carrier based combat so your point is null, as a land based fighter aircraft the typhoon is far better. And for a final statement I'll leave it I really don't need to put you down your information does it for you.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists. In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists? It's worked real well, too, hasn't it? How long did the riots go on last year?

No big news here, the French haven't stood for anything in a long time. They've done their best to appease every aggressor since Adolf Hitler. Eventually they will find a way to blame us for all their problems with Muslim fundamentalists. We surely made them mad.

The scary part is that our government, or at least the left half of it, is dying to act in exactly the same manner. Give in, go home, and just let the FBI handle it. It's the wrong approach for France and we should be able to see through their failures that it's the wrong approach for the United States.


Are you imlying that the US had any successes against terrorists? Where? And BTW the target of your "War on Terrorism", a certain Mr Bin Laden, is still on the loose. The US have created a mess in two countries and made every muslim an enemy but in actual fact achieved nothing in really reducing any terrorist's abilty to strike the US again.
In the five years since the slap against American arrogance you have only made fools of yourselves. Your government is spying on the people and imposing ineffective security measures. But let's face it: you cannot even properly rescue folks from a flooded city. The US have turned into a shame for the Western World.

I'm not even going to bother to argue. You're one of these people who takes disagreement ohhh so personally. It just isn't worth the time and effort for something I really don't care about.

You can go about calling people morons, brainless or whatever else you do to furnish your ego, but it doesn't make your argument any more valid.

It's currently 7:44 am here, and I don't really feel like reading 15 pages of discourse and debate about the French,...

Kudos to the French for realizing that terrorism can't be defeated by nukes. Kudos for not being Bush's ho. :)

India has only 22 Mirage of the newest variety 10 D's and 12 5's. If I said that the F-16 was better I apolagize, however being neck in neck is not impressive perhaps you being the expert can tell me when the mirage entered production and when the F-16 did, the fact that the Mirage is more advanced technologically owes to it being produced nearly a decade later. As for the mirages results against the Pakistanis, this has allot more to do with Pakistani over reliance on ground communication and control and far better training on the part of the Indians. The reason the F-16 is better is because it is cheaper and far easier, cheaper quicker to maintain just look at nations that employ both variants this becomes quickly apparent, Greece 170 F-16's to it's oh 50 or so mirages, Egypt has 220 F-16's to its 16 mirages, no one is even looking to get rid of them. If they arn't worried about replacing the jaguars why are they doing it, I never said they didn't want to replace the Mig's either. I will scoff at the T-90 because what is the point in making a tank that is no mach whatsoever to the tank of your competitors. I will concede the deal between India and the states is a reality thank you for directing my attention to it. Your point about the rafael is utterly bollocks sure I'm not hearing some national pride there Frenchym, what the hell do you mean it did better in Indonesia and South Korea what an ambiguous statement. The Indians wouldn't be using the rafele for carrier based combat so your point is null, as a land based fighter aircraft the typhoon is far better. And for a final statement I'll leave it I really don't need to put you down your information does it for you.

I tire of this. Is threadjacking allowed, or can the mods create a new thread for the loving birds to discuss all the wonders of the military in India?

I tire of this. Is threadjacking allowed, or can the mods create a new thread for the loving birds to discuss all the wonders of the military in India?

Military nerds threadjack so damn much.

but talking about gunz is sexay :D who can resist it?

India has only 22 Mirage of the newest variety 10 D's and 12 5's. If I said that the F-16 was better I apolagize, however being neck in neck is not impressive perhaps you being the expert can tell me when the mirage entered production and when the F-16 did, the fact that the Mirage is more advanced technologically owes to it being produced nearly a decade later. As for the mirages results against the Pakistanis, this has allot more to do with Pakistani over reliance on ground communication and control and far better training on the part of the Indians. The reason the F-16 is better is because it is cheaper and far easier, cheaper quicker to maintain just look at nations that employ both variants this becomes quickly apparent, Greece 170 F-16's to it's oh 50 or so mirages, Egypt has 220 F-16's to its 16 mirages, no one is even looking to get rid of them. If they arn't worried about replacing the jaguars why are they doing it, I never said they didn't want to replace the Mig's either. I will scoff at the T-90 because what is the point in making a tank that is no mach whatsoever to the tank of your competitors. I will concede the deal between India and the states is a reality thank you for directing my attention to it. Your point about the rafael is utterly bollocks sure I'm not hearing some national pride there Frenchym, what the hell do you mean it did better in Indonesia and South Korea what an ambiguous statement. The Indians wouldn't be using the rafele for carrier based combat so your point is null, as a land based fighter aircraft the typhoon is far better. And for a final statement I'll leave it I really don't need to put you down your information does it for you.

Yes, the mirage is slightly newer. But both the F-16 and Mirage are constantly updated with the newest technology, so they are a fair comparison. The F-16 is similar in price to the mirage, and the mirage is actually seen as one of the cheapest planes to maintain in the world, so your point about the F-16 being so easy to maintain, etc, isn't exactly accurate.

About the jaguars, my point was that they didn't have many of them, and that the migs were a more pressing point. This wasn't a big issue for me, I was just pointing it out.

The united states produced great numbers of the F-16, and has a huge manufacturing capability, meaning it can produce them faster and more cheaply than another nation could. Thats a large part in why nations buy them. It also has to do with politics, etc. If the F-16 was so superior, why would nations buy both versions at all?

For the T-90, again, why would you buy equipment that was superior to your opponents, and cost 5 million a piece, when you could buy superior equipment that cost 3 million? The T-90's are cheaper than western tanks, and is still quite strong compared to what pakistan and china fields. It also helps for india to buy cheaper equipment, as they can afford more, and they have the manpower to man more equipment.

National Pride? Im an american, so I don't see exactly what you are getting at. If you didn't hear, Singapore(Not Indonesia, I had forgotten the exact country) and South Korea held competitions between the newest aircraft, to decide what aircraft they wanted to use in the future. The Typhoon, Rafale, and F-15 were the last three aircraft in both competitions. The Typhoon was eliminated first in both, then the F-15 was chosen over the Rafale. There were many reasons for this, politics, lack of full production models, etc. The Rafale still lasted longer than the Typhoon, however.

Why wouldn't the Indians use the Rafale for carrier operations? It operates a carrier, and if it felt a need in the future, it could fairly easily convert some planes for carrier operations. Regardless, my point was that the two planes have different strengths, etc.

You havn't shown any reason why the Typhoon is any better than the rafale in land attack. The Rafale can fly further with drop tanks than the Typhoon, loiter time being a very important capability for aircraft. French counter-measures are arguably better than the rest of europe's, and are even quite comparable to american ones. The rafale has an extra hardpoint over the typhoon, allowing more potential ordinance. The Eurofighter can only carry 6500kg payload, while the Rafale can carry a whole 9000kg.

My point is, its not nearly as clear cut as you'd like to act it is.

It's always about the fucking French with you, isn't it?

Fact is, their position is the majority in the west, and the right one. You are in a hateful and destructive minority.

Not surprisingly, the French position is that a 'war' on terror isn't needed. The Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered a speech today to the French parliament. In that speech, he rejected the very idea of a "War On Terror," saying: "Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises."
They're articulating what most of their citizens and most of Europe believes.

I guess the translation wasn't quite up to snuff because this sounds like the French have had successes against terrorists.
Yes, they have.

In fact, have the French done any more than just appease the Islamists?
Their troops in Afghanistan are appeasing the Islamists?

The French performance there doesn't impress me much. Neither does the French performance at and after Dien Bien Phu.
Changing your criteria when someone proves you wrong?

At least they don't kill people in other nations in foreign actions anymore unlike other unnamed countries.
Unless it's the Cote d'Ivoire.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11668037#post11668037

Here. Have fun.