NationStates Jolt Archive

French President Jacques Chirac has again criticised the US-led invasion of Iraq, saying it has destabilised the region and allowed terrorism to spread.

In his annual New Year's message to French ambassadors, Mr Chirac said France's opposition to the war was fully justified by the situation now.

[...]

"As France had foreseen and feared, the war in Iraq has sparked upheavals that have yet to show their full effects," he said.

"This adventure exacerbated the divisions between communities and shook the very integrity of Iraq. It weakened the stability of the whole region where every country is now worried about its security."


Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6234759.stm).

Which is stating the obvious - and sounds delightfully like "I told you so!" - but unfortunately it probably needed saying.

IIRC, our own Iraq study group came to the same conclusion.

French President Jacques Chirac has again criticised the US-led invasion of Iraq, saying it has destabilised the region and allowed terrorism to spread.


Non, il ne peut pas être! Pensez-vous vraiment ainsi? :rolleyes:

Non, il ne peut pas être! Pensez-vous vraiment ainsi? :rolleyes:
ça t'étonne?

Well, no shit.

Am I the only one who ponders why the French don’t dominate the globe?

The war didnt spark any upheaval anywhere, it only loosened the shackles on the Shiite community. While Saddam was in power he oppressed the heck out of them and the Kurds, even gave the Shittes their own little piece of Baghdad which is now known as Sadr City. Now the Shiites see this as their oppurtunity to exact revenge on the Sunni population in Iraq, mostly in and around a part of Baghdad known as Adhamiya.

The reason the French don't rule the globe... well lets say if they did we'd probably be in the worse state now, thier leaders have no ethics of reality they complain about how the worlds going to pot and yet when someone wants to do something about it they veto it, and when the works done they want all the contracts, im sorry it doesnt work!

The reason the French don't rule the globe... well lets say if they did we'd probably be in the worse state now, thier leaders have no ethics of reality they complain about how the worlds going to pot and yet when someone wants to do something about it they veto it, and when the works done they want all the contracts, im sorry it doesnt work!

Your ignorance is painful.

Just one little fact for you. Of the past 10 vetos in the United Nations, 8 have been by the US, and none by France. The US has cast a lone veto 54 times; France has done so only twice. Of France's 18 uses of its veto power, 13 were joint vetos with the US. France has not used its veto power since 1989; the US has used it as recently as 2006.(Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm).) So, you were saying?

The rest of your garbage isn't worth commenting on. I've done it too many times already.

Buddy i also know who demanded the contracts after the iraq campagn, i also know that they got told to stuff it cause they were too spineless to help out in the liberation, and when your out there its a hell hole, so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in

Oh and another note, remember the falklands, who were the ones who tried to stop us taking the islands back, and who supplied argentina with its exocets?

the nepoleonic wars was the final voctory over the ancient enemy and we beat napoleon twice to be sure, then the next two times we made contact we had to fish them out of the fire, then all they did was to back stab us by giving exocet missiles to argentina with the codes even thoguh they told us they wouldnt... thats the price of helping someone these days and thats why i wouldnt trust the french if you paid me

cause they were too spineless to help out in the liberation, and when your out there its a hell hole

or you’ know not stupid enough to invade somewhere where were not wanted...

so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in

seeing as how there hasn't been any major conflicts in God knows how long I assume I can point out Afghanistan and former Yugoslavia

Oh and another note, remember the falklands, who were the ones who tried to stop us taking the islands back,

so you think killing 19 year old conscripts is a good thing? (and seriously drop the Falklands we thought an impoverished nations troops in what was basically pointless killing)

and who supplied argentina with its exocets?

yeah because its not like anyone else sells weapons:rolleyes:

the nepoleonic wars was the final voctory over the ancient enemy and we beat napoleon twice to be sure,

with most of the European continents help on nothing but sheer luck...

cause they were too spineless to help out in the liberation

Oh, go and get yourself an education or something. Learn to think a little. You may find it painful at first, but it's rewarding in the long term.

I'm not going to waste time explaining the obvious.


so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in

Afghanistan (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/france/20061215-French-Afghanistan.html).

Its a matter of morals mate, the french lied in the falkalnds which got brits killed and we werent the ones sending conscripts in plus about 80% of all conscripts surrendered but then again they were in fact 19 year old conscripts with rifles and SMG's that could kill, whether they are conscripted or not they could kill, but then again is it ok for the kelpers to be held at gunpoint in over crowded sheep sheds, is it ok that argentina starved its own troops... we never oh and have some repect you, this year marks 25 years since the conflict so no i wont drop it and furthermor when you publicly promise not to sell weapons to a corrupt country to ensure peace, you usually keep to it not do i on the sly!

As for iraq, Frnce rattled its sabre once too often, sayin if you want to invade we'll veto it and did they, no they never cos they saw oil and wanted thier fingers in the honey pot too, so i know lets let other people do the owrk and we'll take the credit, sound a bit farmiliar, try goin out there mate its lovely, i know i have.

And if you boast Afghanistan and former yugoslavia, let me reitterate what im sayin, which conflict have they actually fought in, not been part of a peace keeping force that does nothing?

Its a matter of morals mate, the french lied in the falkalnds which got brits killed and we werent the ones sending conscripts in plus about 80% of all conscripts surrendered but then again they were in fact 19 year old conscripts with rifles and SMG's that could kill, whether they are conscripted or not they could kill, but then again is it ok for the kelpers to be held at gunpoint in over crowded sheep sheds, is it ok that argentina starved its own troops...

Don't imply I've said things that I haven't. I've never defended the Argentinian dictatorship of the early 80s. Especially as I'm British myself.

Nor have I said that France has always been squeaky clean in its foreign policy. Heck, I said it hadn't in another thread recently. But don't delude yourself into thinking Britain has. Thatcher was defending her pal nice ole' Chilean mass murderer Augusto Pinochet far more recently than the Falklands. And if you do want to go back a bit, I'm sure you recall that it was the British (and the Americans) who overthrew democracy in Iran and set up a dictatorship there (really smart, that was).


As for iraq, Frnce rattled its sabre once too often, sayin if you want to invade we'll veto it and did they, no they never cos they saw oil and wanted thier fingers in the honey pot too, so i know lets let other people do the owrk and we'll take the credit, sound a bit farmiliar

You fail dismally at understanding the situation. I'm also appalled that you can still be seeing the invasion as a good thing.

See, I have the advantage of dual French and British nationality; it gives me a particular insight into both countries, and especially into the fact that the British really don't understand the French. If it's any comfort, though, the French really don't understand the British either. Which is probably why there's so much stereotyping on both sides. I've come to the conclusion that one really needs to have been raised "bicultural" (so to speak) to understand both sides.

Well if you think that then your a bit deluded yourself, last time i checked britain is 'multi-cultural'. we have to understand other people yet people who move here just wont understand us, thats the problem, we learn europe doesnt...

Well if you think that then your a bit deluded yourself, last time i checked britain is 'multi-cultural'. we have to understand other people yet people who move here just wont understand us, thats the problem, we learn europe doesnt...
Sorry, "Oh noes! T3h immigrants" isn't a trump card, especially in a debate about the Iraq war.

And if you boast Afghanistan and former yugoslavia, let me reitterate what im sayin, which conflict have they actually fought in, not been part of a peace keeping force that does nothing?
Destroying the entire Ivorian airforce, for example.


"There are currently 36,000 French troops deployed overseas."

Non, il ne peut pas être! Pensez-vous vraiment ainsi? :rolleyes:

Si raison qu'il aie, Chirac reste fou!

ok fine, well if im honest, France has a paddy about every conflict thats going on, they complain they rattle thier sabres and they do nothing useful, and the same went for the Iraq war and Chirac has no right to say anything because hes spineless, that enough for you mate?

Well if you think that then your a bit deluded yourself, last time i checked britain is 'multi-cultural'. we have to understand other people yet people who move here just wont understand us, thats the problem, we learn europe doesnt...

*groans*

OK, I'm going to try and stay civil and not talk to you as if you were a child.

a) Just because Britain is officially "multicultural" doesn't mean there's no racism against immigrants or the British-born children and grandchildren of immigrants in Britain.

b) Accepting immigrants doesn't necessarily mean you know much about their culture, nor does it mean you have an active understanding of their cultures, perspectives and views. (Acceptation and understanding are two very different things.) Go on, prove me wrong. Tell me you've been making active efforts to understand the cultural perspectives of the British-Bangladeshi communities, for example.

c) Britain is hardly an example to Europe in this field. It's a lot more complex than that.

d) You've completely missed my point. Being French, growing up French, gives one views, a certain look on the world, society, values... which is in many ways different from any British one. I say this as someone who is both French and British, and who has witnessed time and time again the fact that British and French people lack a basic understanding of one another - probably because it is extremely difficult to have a genuine understanding of a culture which is not your own. Again, though, I invite you to prove me wrong. Tell me what it means to be French, from a French person's perspective.

And if you boast Afghanistan and former yugoslavia, let me reitterate what im sayin, which conflict have they actually fought in, not been part of a peace keeping force that does nothing?

Tell that to the families of the seven French soldiers killed while fighting in Afghanistan.

France currently has forces deployed in seventeen foreign countries (including Afghanistan and Lebanon), not counting French overseas territories. It plays a crucial role in forming the military forces of several African countries, and has a very importance peacekeeping role in countries such as Haïti, Côte d'Ivoire and Chad.

You continue to display your ignorance by saying that peacekeeping forces "do nothing". Try telling that to all the people whose lives they have saved. But I suppose it's easier to just boast about going about killing people and destroying stuff. How much more useful, humane and constructive.

Your view that countries should actively seek out aggressive military involvment makes me feel sad for you. I just hope one day you'll grow up a little.

A few examples, taken from here (http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp).


Afghanistan: with 1,900 French troops, France is one of the major partners of the United States in Afghanistan. French contributions include troops deployed to the International Security Assistance Force (13% of ISAF), training of the Afghan National Army, Operation Enduring Freedom on the ground (Special Forces), at sea (3 frigates and 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft), and in the air (6 fighter aircraft, 1 tanker and 2 transport aircraft). Periodically, fighter aircraft are also deployed in the region, with an air tanker, to offer close air support to ISAF and OEF ground troops. Mirage 200D strike aircraft, and Mirage F1CR reconnaissance and bomber aircraft, are presently based in Tajikistan until autumn 2006, in order to support both the NATO Troops, who are gradually expanding the area of operations into southern Afghanistan, as well as US-led coalition forces, including French special forces, who have been hunting the Taliban and Al Qaida remnants since 2001.

[...]

Ivory Coast: France has had for years a permanent military presence in Ivory Coast, under the terms of a defense agreement with that country. In the fall of 2002, under the terms of a United Nations resolution, France deployed around 4,000 troops to protect foreign civilians and prevent a civil war. After the deployment of a UN peace keeping force (ONUCI) and a new resolution of the UNSC, their current mission consists of protecting non-combatant foreigners and supporting UN forces in charge of monitoring the ceasefire and assisting the parties in undertaking DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration);

[...]

Africa :1,300 troops in Chad and 200 in the Central AfricanRepublic contribute by their presence, at the invitation of both governments, to the stability of these countries and to the training of their armed forces for peace-keeping operations;
Darfur, Sudan: to address the humanitarian crisis, France mobilized military transport capabilities in Chad (airplanes, helicopters) for humanitarian relief operations. French aircraft ferried 700 tons of humanitarian aid at a cost of about $2.2 million. In addition, 200 French troops in Chad contributed to the stabilization of the Chad/Sudan border through patrols in Chad and along the border between the two countries. Furthermore, French F-1 Mirages, stationed with French troops in Chad, carry out frequent reconnaissance missions on the Chadian side of the Chad-Sudan border. Two French Army officers are part of the Abeche monitoring team, and two more French army officers are working with the African Union (AU) planning unit in Addis Ababa.
In July 2006, France sent 700 troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of an E.U. military mission to help maintain peace during elections. These troops will spend 4 months in that country to support the 17,000 U.N. soldiers currently stationed there as peace-keepers. France heads the operations on site in Kinshasa, while the overall mission is under German command based in Postdam.


But then as you've said, British Ex-Pats, you despise people who prevent civil wars. You only respect people who cause them.

... so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in

The whole point is not to go to war in the first place, or do you consider war so darn sexy that you think we should have more of them? A war is not a triumph of a nation but a failing of it.

ok fine, well if im honest, France has a paddy about every conflict thats going on,

If you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan then there's nothing wrong with opposing an illegal, immoral and wholly unjustified war. And, for your information, France wasn't the only one having a 'paddy' at all. France, Russia and China (that's a majority of the permanent members of the Security Council) all signalled that they would not support a second resolution authorising military action against Iraq.

Strike one...
they complain they rattle thier sabres and they do nothing useful,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions

Oh dear! It seems France has taken part in most of them.

And oh look! Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force)!

Strike two...
and the same went for the Iraq war and Chirac has no right to say anything because hes spineless,
What a load of bullshit. Pretending to be a military superpower by tagging along with America truly is spineless - especially considering that we would never in our wildest dreams have gone it alone. I'd count putting Bush over British public opinion (http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/back_brief_springford_dec03.pdf) as pretty spineless too.

Three strikes, you're out!

Chirac has no right to say anything because hes spineless

Oh, dear, look, how ignorant you are... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html). Again.

Tired of making a fool of yourself yet?

I know it must be difficult for you to grasp, but sending troops around the world to take part in dangerous military operations, including in Afghanistan, while simultaneously condemning the military invasion of Iraq as unjustifiable, as a threat to international stability and as an encouragement to terrorism (and hey, guess what... he was right! British meddling in Iraq has increased terrorism!) does not make one "spineless".

Your ignorance is painful.

Just one little fact for you. Of the past 10 vetos in the United Nations, 8 have been by the US, and none by France. The US has cast a lone veto 54 times; France has done so only twice. Of France's 18 uses of its veto power, 13 were joint vetos with the US. France has not used its veto power since 1989; the US has used it as recently as 2006.(Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm).) So, you were saying?

The rest of your garbage isn't worth commenting on. I've done it too many times already.

It isn't fair trying to argue with a conservative by using facts. It's like bringing a gun to a gunfight when the other guy brought a knife.

It isn't fair trying to argue with a conservative by using facts. It's like bringing a gun to a gunfight when the other guy brought a knife.

I know, and a part of me feels as if I'm kicking a confused puppy or a child, which isn't nice. But then, I've run out of patience which people who thrust out their ignorant views and parade them around, displaying their ignorance proudly. Amusing as it may be to watch.

It isn't fair trying to argue with a conservative by using facts. It's like bringing a gun to a gunfight when the other guy brought a knife.

He's not conservative... He's simply ignorant and francophobic. (Gaellophobic, perhaps?)

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6234759.stm).

Which is stating the obvious - and sounds delightfully like "I told you so!" - but unfortunately it probably needed saying.
This just in, The Pope is Catholic and George W. Bush is stupid.

Buddy i also know who demanded the contracts after the iraq campagn, i also know that they got told to stuff it cause they were too spineless to help out in the liberation, and when your out there its a hell hole, so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in


"Liberation"?


ok fine, well if im honest, France has a paddy about every conflict thats going on, they complain they rattle thier sabres and they do nothing useful, and the same went for the Iraq war and Chirac has no right to say anything because hes spineless, that enough for you mate?

Now now, just because they aren't an unofficial US state like Britain....

He's not conservative... He's simply ignorant and francophobic. (Gaellophobic, perhaps?)
I think the term is "gallophobic" rather than "gaellophobic" At least according to Google, although "francophobic" is much more popular.

Its a matter of morals mate, the french lied in the falkalnds which got brits killed
Right, because we British have never ever lied to the French and got them killed either, aye?
and we werent the ones sending conscripts in plus about 80% of all conscripts surrendered but then again they were in fact 19 year old conscripts with rifles and SMG's that could kill, whether they are conscripted or not they could kill, but then again is it ok for the kelpers to be held at gunpoint in over crowded sheep sheds, is it ok that argentina starved its own troops... we never oh and have some repect you, this year marks 25 years since the conflict so no i wont drop it and furthermor when you publicly promise not to sell weapons to a corrupt country to ensure peace, you usually keep to it not do i on the sly!
Nothing to do with France whatsoever.

And they didn't hold the kelpers at gun point, I actually know people who did live there, and they said that for most of the time, the Argentinians were just discussing life at home, and weren't honestly doing anything very oppressive and especially not to the levels that Thatcher said.
As for iraq, Frnce rattled its sabre once too often, sayin if you want to invade we'll veto it and did they
That's nothing to do with sabre rattling and everything to do with knowing that the average Iraqi has bugger all to do with anything untowards, and a whole load of them were going to get killed if we invaded. Which they have.
no they never cos they saw oil and wanted thier fingers in the honey pot too, so i know lets let other people do the owrk and we'll take the credit
Or maybe "the Iraqis' lives have been fucked over by war - maybe let's start rebuilding and getting them back into jobs so they're not shooting at each other".
sound a bit farmiliar
Not really, care to enlighten us?
try goin out there mate its lovely, i know i have.
I don't think anyone really cares.
And if you boast Afghanistan and former yugoslavia, let me reitterate what im sayin, which conflict have they actually fought in, not been part of a peace keeping force that does nothing?
The first Gulf War.

Am I the only one who ponders why the French don’t dominate the globe? becoz its the human race we are talking about.. the one with the biggest weapons wins.

This just in, The Pope is Catholic and George W. Bush is stupid.What?? the Pope is Catholic?
I learn new stuff everyday @ NS. :D

ça t'étonne?

Ce qui m'étonnent? La capacité Chirac doit énoncer très l'évident? Certainement pas!

Its a matter of morals mate, the french lied in the falkalnds which got brits killed ...Wait.. You went to War and expected to have zero casualties????

fact#1 if there is War.. people ARE going to get killed.

fact#2 in War the first casualty is the truth.. (people will lie to you from everywere from everyangle.. Generals will lie to the Soldiers..Soldiers will Lie to the Generals.. Your Gov will Lie to everyone)

Ce qui m'étonnent? La capacité Chirac doit énoncer très l'évident? Certainement pas!???

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6234759.stm).

Which is stating the obvious - and sounds delightfully like "I told you so!" - but unfortunately it probably needed saying.

How very...French.

How very...French.

Nah, it's pretty much popular Canadian public opinion, too. We're just, as a whole, too polite to say something along the lines of, 'Duh, idiot.'

How very...French.

Well, thank you. :)

Well, thank you. :)

Yeah, I see the radical increase in terrorist attacks in the US... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I see the radical increase in terrorist attacks in the US... :rolleyes:

If it didn't happen in the US, it didn't happen anywhere.

If it didn't happen in the US, it didn't happen anywhere.

All politics are local...

All politics are local...

What's that even supposed to mean?

What's that even supposed to mean?

It means that people in France don't vote in US elections...

It means that people in France don't vote in US elections...

I don't see how that relates to the increase of global terrorism.

I don't see how that relates to the increase of global terrorism.

I'll explain then.

If a politician is making policy, they only care what people who can vote for them think. Fuck everyone else, unless they're giving you money.

So, if a French politician makes any policy at all, it's to favor French businesses, and French voters. Fuck any Americans.

See?

Unless the constituents value things like World Peace, Love, and Harmony.

Or at least, world prosperity.

If it didn't happen in the US, it didn't happen anywhere.

Thank you for saying that before I could get round to it.


If a politician is making policy, they only care what people who can vote for them think. Fuck everyone else, unless they're giving you money.


Obviously, but irrelevant to the point at hand. Chirac is quite correct. The invasion of Iraq was a tremendous boost to the recruitement drive of terrorist organisations, notwithstanding the fact that the US has not been hit again by terrorists.

Unless the constituents value things like World Peace, Love, and Harmony.

Or at least, world prosperity.

Yeah, right.

Nah, it's pretty much popular Canadian public opinion, too. We're just, as a whole, too polite to say something along the lines of, 'Duh, idiot.'

Indeed. Its quite telling that the only US president in History to visit Ireland and not meet adoring hordes is one George "Dubya" Bush. Richard "tricky dicky" Nixon did, even Ronnie "Raygun" Reagan did, but not the Dubya. Various senior members of the government made "other arrangements" rather than sit at the table with the most powerful man in the world,scurrying round like lackeys - totally out of character for most in politics, lets face it.

I'll explain then.

If a politician is making policy, they only care what people who can vote for them think. Fuck everyone else, unless they're giving you money.

So, if a French politician makes any policy at all, it's to favor French businesses, and French voters. Fuck any Americans.

See?

Just the way Halliburton and its subsidiaries bagged most if not all of the post-invasion contracts in Iraq. Genius.

Obviously, but irrelevant to the point at hand. Chirac is quite correct. The invasion of Iraq was a tremendous boost to the recruitement drive of terrorist organisations, notwithstanding the fact that the US has not been hit again by terrorists.

Kimchi Online, New Mitanni and all the other Busheviks here measure the success rate of U.S. foreign policy on the lack of domestic terrorism. They don't give a shit if Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group blows shit up elsewhere because of those policies.

I read recently that the sky might be predominately blue in colors.

It isn't fair trying to argue with a conservative by using facts. It's like bringing a gun to a gunfight when the other guy brought a knife.

Har yes, because conservatives are stupid. Liberals are smart. Conservatives evil, liberals good. Republicans conservative, Democrats liberal. Jews are moneygrubbers, blacks are athletic, asians are smart. Stereotyping is fun isn't it?

Stereotyping is fun isn't it?
Well, you're sexy, sexy.

Your ignorance is painful.

The rest of your garbage isn't worth commenting on. I've done it too many times already.
It's a pity that the most ignorant people in the west are controlling the west's largest military power.

As the French officials accepted bribes from Saddam for opposition....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36820
Saddam Hussein used oil to bribe French officials into opposing the U.S.-led war against Iraq

or maybe, we, the USA, could have used Chirac's stance on battling the supporters of terrorism...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/23/int1.htm
French President Jacques Chirac came under attack in Iran on Sunday after warning that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism,

the truth shall set you free...

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
A documentary broadcast by FR3 television in Paris last month narrated the 30-year old Chirac-Saddam personal friendship. But it also missed the point: Mr. Chirac sought Saddam's friendship not out of personal empathy but in the framework of a political vision.

funny how one can praise Islam....

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120201/news_pf/Worldandnation/French_president_trav.shtml

and then make policies at home against Islam...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169776/posts

So, is the proper way to fight terrorism to use Nukes? Would the UN and the rest of the world back Chirac up on his Nuke the terrorist and supporters of terrorism stance?

For as uncivilized as Iraq is, it should have been expected to be a long, hard stablization process. It definately wasn't something to happen over night.

All politics are local...
I never noticed Iraq as a US state. :rolleyes:

Just come out and say that you couldn't give a shit about the hundreds of Spaniards, Britons, and others killed by international Islamist terrorism.

Eve, I have a rock to sell you. It keeps away tigers.

with most of the European continents help on nothing but sheer luck...

Dont really wanna make many enemys but as being quite the historian on the Napoleonic times, I have to say that the only European continents that were involved in the wars from 1799-1821 were:

Allies
England

Germany (odd, as how quickly ww1 happened after it eh? Back then called Prussia)

Holland (but they were something beggining with s and ending in t)

Austria, in one war

Russia in one war

Sweden, who helped defeat Denmark...one war...

Spain, after we liberated them, and they fought in 2 wars

Portugal, always with us..

So the true allies were England Germany and Prussia...

Enemies

France

Italy

Naples (one war after they were oblitareated)

Warsaw, (obliterated)

Bavaria (damn good)

Saxony (survived for a while...)

Denmark (one war, naval)

So there was France, Italy, Saxony and Bavaria on this side...



Of course me being british you would expect predujice, but i assure you the tactics the British used outclassed all known at the time for instance:

The thin red line - 2 lines of men, one kneeling, one standing, all men could easily destroy the French tactics of going at them in a massive rectangular 'block' 50 musketeers could kill half of a French battalion (1000 men) in a rectangular formation.

retreating/advancing tactics - the command - First rank fire, reload, second rank fire, first rank, fall through ( go in between the second rank men) second rank reload, first rank fire etc...This was also used to advance, except second rank would 'fall through' forwards.

cavalry attacks - The British would form a square, which no horse could break if it was formed properly.

Skirmishers - The British light infantry were, and still are the best in the world. In 1803 riflemen were introduced to the army and often used in warfare by 1807. The french believed that the rifle, despite its improved accuracy over the muskeet took to long to load (rifles were known to be lethal at up to 892 paces, muskets only at 50, realistically).

Bayonets - The British had a sword bayonet, 18 inches of cold steel, rather then the usual 12, these sword bayonets inflicted more damage, and were actually cheaper to produce, and thus buy.

Naval tactics - at the battle of Traflagar (1805) for the first time ever, two thin lines of ships cut through the enemy and a right angle, which meant that if two ful broadsides were fired, it would hit 2 ships, the french and spanish (still foes then) would be destroyed by the incredible cannonery the British had (average time to load a cannon in 1805 for France and Spain combines = 2 minutes 34 seconds, for GB = 1 minutes 16 seconds, the British could fire 2 broadsides in the time it would take French or Spanish to fire 1).

Hope that this proves it isnt luck.,..Sorry for the incredible length of this post, but im pretty knowledagalbe about Napoleonic times...

As the French officials accepted bribes from Saddam for opposition....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36820
Saddam Hussein used oil to bribe French officials into opposing the U.S.-led war against Iraq

or maybe, we, the USA, could have used Chirac's stance on battling the supporters of terrorism...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/23/int1.htm
French President Jacques Chirac came under attack in Iran on Sunday after warning that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism,

the truth shall set you free...

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
A documentary broadcast by FR3 television in Paris last month narrated the 30-year old Chirac-Saddam personal friendship. But it also missed the point: Mr. Chirac sought Saddam's friendship not out of personal empathy but in the framework of a political vision.

funny how one can praise Islam....

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120201/news_pf/Worldandnation/French_president_trav.shtml

and then make policies at home against Islam...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169776/posts

So, is the proper way to fight terrorism to use Nukes? Would the UN and the rest of the world back Chirac up on his Nuke the terrorist and supporters of terrorism stance?

For as uncivilized as Iraq is, it should have been expected to be a long, hard stablization process. It definately wasn't something to happen over night.

And these other headlines just in...

Clay Aiken is a womanizing stud.

O.J. Simpson finds Real Killers.

Dick Cheney is a sharpshooter.

As the French officials accepted bribes from Saddam for opposition....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36820
Saddam Hussein used oil to bribe French officials into opposing the U.S.-led war against Iraq

You quote WorldNetDaily (from January 2004, no less!) as anything other than a joke, and you expect to be taken seriously?

And then, as if you hadn't made enough of a fool of yourself, you use 2004 allegations which have never led to anything as if they were fact?


or maybe, we, the USA, could have used Chirac's stance on battling the supporters of terrorism...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/23/int1.htm
French President Jacques Chirac came under attack in Iran on Sunday after warning that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism,

Do you think you're telling us anything new?

Of all people, I would have thought you would have approved. But then of course, when it's France doing it and not the US... :rolleyes:


A documentary broadcast by FR3 television in Paris last month narrated the 30-year old Chirac-Saddam personal friendship.


Nothing new there either, Jimbo. Very old, very out of date news.

On the other hand, I can't recall you having said anything about Rummy shaking Saddam's hand. Or about the US having armed, funded and supported Saddam in his war against Iran. Back in the days when he was the US' best buddy. Strange, that...


funny how one can praise Islam....


"Praise Islam"?


and then make policies at home against Islam...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169776/posts


Your lack of ability to understand basic and easy realities is beginning to hurt my brain. It's not easy dumbing myself down to your level, but let's give it a try...

France be secular. Law back in 1905 make France secular. In French be called "laïcité". Recent law NOT just about Muslim headscarfs, unlike what silly sensationalist foreign media say. Law ban ALL religious symbols in school. Including Christian.

Chirac Christian. You say he anti-Christian?

If necessary, I can simplify that further into words of one syllable.


For as uncivilized as Iraq is, it should have been expected to be a long, hard stablization process. It definately wasn't something to happen over night.

Mind-boggling. Look at these words carefully:

There-was-no-justification-for-destabilising-it-in-the-first-place-!

You may not have grasped this, but Chirac's point was that the invasion itself would lead to this mess.

I thought his point was so obvious it barely needed making. But apparently it did.

I just don't understand why if the French despises the US government so much and is filled with hate of the USA, and how almighty the French are, why don't they come and liberate the oppressed, no civil right sob of Americans... :rolleyes: Bring it on!

The French are so much more intelligent than the USA. Their economy and military and them being the sole super power tells us all this... :rolleyes:

The World's Liberators should be the French :rolleyes:

I actually like to look at this as not the "Spreading terrorism" but more of "bringing the terrorists out of hiding" Much easier to hit what you can see instead of cowards who are determined to hide amongst the civilians and then make sure the media heres how civilians were targeted.....

I just don't understand why if the French despises the US government so much

Oh, it's not just us, dearie. Us and the majority of people in about 200 countries.


and is filled with hate of the USA,


Your inability to distinguish between a country and its government does little to prove your intelligence.


the oppressed, no civil right sob of Americans... :rolleyes: Bring it on!


Americans are oppressed and lack civil rights? You're the first person I've heard say that.


The French are so much more intelligent than the USA.


Fortunately, I don't think you're representative of the average level of intelligence of Americans.

At least, I hope not.


Their economy and military and them being the sole super power tells us all this... :rolleyes:


Far less than your choice of criteria...


The World's Liberators should be the French :rolleyes:


I would make fun of you at this point, but I really feel too sad for you.

Buddy i also know who demanded the contracts after the iraq campagn, i also know that they got told to stuff it cause they were too spineless to help out in the liberation, and when your out there its a hell hole, so you tell me the last major conflict the french actually took part in

I couldn't imagine a world where the French ruled, it'd probably be conquered or destrpyed in a very short time. The Frech wouldn't help out a country begging to be freed from Hussein while the US took the stand and gave them their liberation. How can France, who wouldn't exist if the US hadn't LIBERATED them in WWII deny another country their right to freedom!?!

I just don't understand why if the French despises the US government so much and is filled with hate of the USA, and how almighty the French are, why don't they come and liberate the oppressed, no civil right sob of Americans... :rolleyes: Bring it on!
Probably because the French, like most other countries, don't invade other countries simply because they don't like them or their government. Took us Europeans long enough to work that out as a good thing, but at least we, (excluding Blair) managed to do so before the end of the 20th century.

The French are so much more intelligent than the USA. Their economy and military and them being the sole super power tells us all this... :rolleyes:
You really think that an economy is purely dependent on intelligence? You'll notice that the attached graph produces a nice fuzzy correlation, not a nice simple straight line? Hint: not only intelligence effects an economy. And considering the effect of good public education on intelligence, I'd say that an good economy can help boost intelligence, not just the other way round.

Perhaps I should copy and paste that comment when China becomes a superpower and you accept your intellectual inferiority.

For the record, French and US average IQ is identical at 98: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

The World's Liberators should be the French :rolleyes:
I wouldn't care. They've got a great lifestyle. I went on holiday last year and stopped in Saumur, on the Loire valley. By coincidence, it was their annual wine festival. €4 for a wine glass and all the wine you can drink. No riots. Noone getting too wankered. Nobody nasty. Couldn't do that here in the UK. Personally, I'd love it.

I actually like to look at this as not the "Spreading terrorism" but more of "bringing the terrorists out of hiding" Much easier to hit what you can see instead of cowards who are determined to hide amongst the civilians and then make sure the media heres how civilians were targeted.....
How the fuck do you think the Iraq war brought terrorists out of hiding? Apart from creating so many more terrorists that the Tora Bora underground hotel is full, I have no idea how this quagmire has brought them out of hiding.

I would have called what you just said a steaming pile of shit, but I decided then even shit, unlike this, may be recycled into something of value to society.

*snip*

Why don't you go after the articles instead of the person who posted such articles.

Probably because the French, like most other countries, don't invade other countries simply because they don't like them or their government. Took us Europeans long enough to work that out as a good thing, but at least we, (excluding Blair) managed to do so before the end of the 20th century.

And then you had World War II and the whole balkans crisis. Nice job there.

I couldn't imagine a world where the French ruled, it'd probably be conquered or destrpyed in a very short time. The Frech wouldn't help out a country begging to be freed from Hussein while the US took the stand and gave them their liberation. How can France, who wouldn't exist if the US hadn't LIBERATED them in WWII deny another country their right to freedom!?!
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/Stupidity.jpg

I do apologise for being so rude, but Jesus effing Christ.

And then you had World War II and the whole balkans crisis. Nice job there.
No, that was at the start of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century

I couldn't imagine a world where the French ruled, it'd probably be conquered or destrpyed in a very short time. The Frech wouldn't help out a country begging to be freed from Hussein while the US took the stand and gave them their liberation. How can France, who wouldn't exist if the US hadn't LIBERATED them in WWII deny another country their right to freedom!?!

Should I even touch this, or is it too easy prey?


Why don't you go after the articles instead of the person who posted such articles.

I have. Or the issues raised, at least. If you have further questions, I can clarify.

I have. Or the issues raised, at least. If you have further questions, I can clarify.

Believe what you will.

Believe what you will.

As I said:


If you have further questions, I can clarify.

Or go ahead and tell me what I haven't replied to.

Like a campfire attracts moths.....

:p

I actually like to look at this as not the "Spreading terrorism" but more of "bringing the terrorists out of hiding" Much easier to hit what you can see instead of cowards who are determined to hide amongst the civilians and then make sure the media heres how civilians were targeted.....
When they were sitting at their cafés shaking their fists at the TV-screen and cursing America, they weren't terrorists. When they now feel compelled to go blow something up, they are new terrorists, not terrorists that come out of hiding.

I strongly believe that the "war on terror" has created several new terrorists who would never have imagined themselves in that position just a few years ago.

Well one thing is clear, Iraq is far less stable, and far more people are being tortured, kidnapped and murdered than even in the worst days. Move over Saddam, the new Iraq tyranny is the US!

I just don't understand why if the French despises the US government so much and is filled with hate of the USA, and how almighty the French are, why don't they come and liberate the oppressed, no civil right sob of Americans... :rolleyes: Bring it on!Same reason for not liberating Iraq, I suppose. It would leave a bigger mess behind than there already is.
The French are so much more intelligent than the USA. Their economy and military and them being the sole super power tells us all this... :rolleyes: Chirac predicted the outcome of the conflict rather well. I don't know if that makes him intelligent, but certainly wiser than the shrub.
The World's Liberators should be the French :rolleyes: Now try and name a country that actually deserves the title.
I actually like to look at this as not the "Spreading terrorism" but more of "bringing the terrorists out of hiding" Much easier to hit what you can see instead of cowards who are determined to hide amongst the civilians and then make sure the media heres how civilians were targeted.....
You're horribly misinformed. But it's not only your fault. The lack of a reliable news source over here is just as much to blame.

As the French officials accepted bribes from Saddam for opposition....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36820
Saddam Hussein used oil to bribe French officials into opposing the U.S.-led war against Iraq
And Dick Cheney's $30m. payment from Halliburton did not, at all, affect his policy on Iraq, which he would have known, unless he was a pure moron (which he obviously isn't), would need huge rebuilding efforts after a war?

The Bush family's dislike of Saddam also played absolutely no role in it, now, did it?
or maybe, we, the USA, could have used Chirac's stance on battling the supporters of terrorism...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/23/int1.htm
French President Jacques Chirac came under attack in Iran on Sunday after warning that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism
Because such things have never been used as threats by the US towards, say, Iran, now, have they?
the truth shall set you free...

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
Massive bias all over the place here -

Until last month it seemed that Mr. Chirac had scored a major victory in the first phase of his plan. The U.S. had been duped by an ambiguous Resolution 1441 and seemed hooked to endless diplomatic maneuvers in the Security Council while anti-American sentiments, partly encouraged by Mr. Chirac and his accidental partner, Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, continued to rise in much of Europe.

Mr. Chirac's opposition to any action against Saddam was based on a false assumption: the Bush administration would not dare go to war without the express authority of the Security Council. The French leader was convinced that he could drag on "the political process" around a "second" resolution well into the summer in the hope that the heat and dust of the region would render war impossible.

By Feb. 7, however, U.S. President George W. Bush had made his mind to go to war and refused to take Mr. Chirac's latest call to the White House.

Mr. Chirac had overplayed a weak hand.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Incredible journalistic neutrality there - truly I applaud the transparancy that this news company shows. Let's have a few more examples, shall we?

---------------------------------------------------------------

It is not just the relations with Washington and London that have been "wrecked," at least temporarily. Mr. Chirac has divided the European Union, damaged NATO, and, perhaps, given the Security Council the coup de grace. He has insulted the East Europeans who dared express support for the U.S., and antagonized the Turks by trying to block defense assistance to them through NATO.

...

Add to that Mr. Chirac's quarrels with Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi and Jose Maria Aznar, over various issues, and the full extent of the wreckage caused in France's foreign relations becomes clearer.

How did Mr. Chirac, a man who was in government when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, work himself into such a tight corner? Some of his friends blame it all on Mr. de Villepin, an amateur poet who tends to get carried away when delivering his flowery speeches.

Mr. Chirac earned his nickname of "le bulldozer" when he was minister of agriculture in 1969 for his rough tactics when negotiating European fish quotas and farm subsidies. His friends say he is only encouraged on his confrontational course by Mr. de Villepin.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Nice!

A documentary broadcast by FR3 television in Paris last month narrated the 30-year old Chirac-Saddam personal friendship. But it also missed the point: Mr. Chirac sought Saddam's friendship not out of personal empathy but in the framework of a political vision.
Doobie doo...

http://eyedot.blogspot.com/rumsfeld_hussein.gif
funny how one can praise Islam....

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120201/news_pf/Worldandnation/French_president_trav.shtml
This basically says "Islam is a religion of peace and I respect the proper members, and condemn those who use it as an excuse for terrorism.
and then make policies at home against Islam...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169776/posts
The French keep the state and church separate in all ways. This especially includes schools - people can't wear crosses, or the Kirpan it's not just headscarves that people can't wear.

The two are seperate issues - and from the bunch of dickheads and morons posting on the 'freerepublic' site, it can't exactly be taken very seriously.

*edits*

Just thought I might get a couple of quotes in to prove this, actually -

'"The ban evokes a ghetto mentality," he told the conference. "You are antagonizing Muslims."
Sounds a little like "we're gonna kill you for this action". Am I just a little paranoid?(not really)LOL'

'Perhaps when islam decides to be a little more tolerant of Christians instead of slaughtering them all over the globe they'll be able to wear their head and face disguises in the West without causing concern. What are these faceless women hiding from anyway?'

'(My personal favourite, by the way) Hey Muslims! Take your piece-of-pigsh*t gutter cult back to the desert and leave the civilized world alone!'



Thank you, the intelligentsia of the far right wing for your intellectual views on the subject.
So, is the proper way to fight terrorism to use Nukes? Would the UN and the rest of the world back Chirac up on his Nuke the terrorist and supporters of terrorism stance?
He made threats to try and galvanise states like Saudi Arabia, which is surprisingly the US' top bum-chum in the area, despite its horrific humans rights record, utter lack of any kind of democracy, and its funding of terrorism, to actually try and get up off their arses and do something about terrorism in their areas.
For as uncivilized as Iraq is, it should have been expected to be a long, hard stablization process. It definately wasn't something to happen over night.
Iraq wasn't uncivilised before the war. It had excellent women's rights, as far as the region went (equal rights in employment and voting), a good infrastructure, and people were surprisingly well-fed considering the horrible sanctions that Iraq was under.

What the US did is bomb it back to the stone age, and then come an 'fix' it, when it wasn't broken to begin with. Cheers.

The French are so much more intelligent than the USA. Their economy and military and them being the sole super power tells us all this... :rolleyes:


Yes, a country's military is the best way to measure the intelligence of the average citizen. In fact, I like to think that every time a new soldier is recruited into the British army, I gain an IQ point.

Yes, a country's military is the best way to measure the intelligence of the average citizen. In fact, I like to think that every time a new soldier is recruited into the British army, I gain an IQ point.
Absolutely - in fact three or four, because ours are awfully well trained.