# French Army



## jimnyc (Aug 31, 2003)

Q. What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
A. The French Army.


----------



## janeeng (Aug 31, 2003)

Der der der, heard that one already!


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 7, 2004)

Q - How do you call the mightiest european army, one of the mightiest of the world, with good equipement, best tank of the world, one of the best fighter, one of the best rifle, maybe best than the famous M-16, and with high quality soldiers, who really know how to do the war without kill civilians, with a long practice of peace operation in hot zone, with British soldiers - who are really good too -  ? 
A - the French Army


Q - How do you call the amry with young soldiers who are not prepare to war, who shoot on everything, even women and kids ?
A - US Army


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 7, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Q - How do you call the mightiest european army, one of the mightiest of the world, with good equipement, best tank of the world, one of the best fighter, one of the best rifle, maybe best than the famous M-16, and with high quality soldiers, who really know how to do the war without kill civilians, with a long practice of peace operation in hot zone, with British soldiers - who are really good too -  ?
> A - the French Army
> 
> 
> ...



When is the last time your MIGHTY Army actually defended your country successfully?


----------



## Merlin1047 (Sep 7, 2004)

Hell, I heard once that someone popped the cork to a champagne bottle and:

1.  a whole battalion of french army surrendered.

2.  a two mile long line of frenchmen signing up to be collaborators formed in under fifteen minutes.

3.  the chunnel was jammed with french government officials hightailing it for London to set up a government in exile.

4.  french flag makers were having heart attacks trying to figure out which flags to produce.

5.  Responding to desperate pleas, George Bush told Jacques Chirac that America could not, in conscience, assist without authorization from the UN.


P.S.  Get a sense of humor, Francois.  It's a joke.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Q - How do you call the mightiest european army, one of the mightiest of the world, with good equipement, best tank of the world, one of the best fighter, one of the best rifle, maybe best than the famous M-16, and with high quality soldiers, who really know how to do the war without kill civilians, with a long practice of peace operation in hot zone, with British soldiers - who are really good too -  ?
> A - the French Army



Kinda hard to kill civilians in war if you make the Americans do all your dirty work. Kinda easy to call your equipment the best if you never test it in battle. 

its also kinda hard to practice peace operations in the middle of a war

It also hard to claim the French are the mightest army in the Europe when the British actually have military experience.

Its also easy to be an ungrateful sob with a stick up his butt when "young soldiers unprepared for war" have to save your butts every couple decades.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 8, 2004)

merlin, I've got humour, but it's borung when I read always the same things about France  , your jokes did like France now is the 1940 France......tell at a German that his country is like in 1940, I think he'll kick you 

British  slodiers did war in Iraq, yes, so they had a war experience in 2003/2004. But saying that France hasn't is wrong : in Yugoslavia, with Blue Helmets, during severals years, in 1999 in Kosovo - the second most impotrant army sent here after USA were the french one.
2004 : Haiti's inetrvention with US Marines and French RIMA (marine infantry, like your Marines), RPIMA (Paras from marine infantry).
2003/2004 : In Ivory Coast, fights against Rebels.
Be sure that french amry is ready for a war, for a conflict, our equipment is good, our soldiers are too, but i wish that the wars for those France is ready would not come (it's not cowardice, but the wish of peace).

(Do youknow that France have oe of the best military intelligence corps ? With Mirage F-1, ground vehicles............this intelligence corps helped USA in Afghanistan.... And about the french special forces : high high quality : they are great in intelligence mission, in snowy mountain, urban zone, or every other kind of ground. They are the best at fight, their practice is the best - or one of the best - , and did you know, the US Navy seals copy their practice on the French Foreign Legion's one...........  )
(french elite's regiments : Legion, RPIMA, 17th Hussard, 35th Dragon........a lot of other.)

So the French army is ready for a war...


And when you ask me when France defend itself, it is a little stupid : it means that you deem the French Army  in relation to the French army of 1940..... 2 things : the 1940's french army was not bad,but the HQ was. the tactics were not good. But the army : soldiers, equipment....were good. the HQ  was really bad.
second thing : the French army of 1940 is not the actually French Amry : it's a non-sense to think that if French army failed in 1940, it 'll failed also now. You can't deem something actual compared with something old. If you do it, you can say everything, but all would be dumb. 
Appreciate a thing compared with this thing, but 60 year's agos is stupid.


To end : you say that US kill civilian but France didn't the dirty job, and din't even the war....during the UN ops in Balkans, French and British didn't kill civilians.......they protect them.


----------



## CSM (Sep 8, 2004)

Actually, the French Army is not all that bad.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/0/CC36097769BB35C785256D86006C576D?OpenDocument

*The French Army*
There are only a few armies in the world today that retain robust full spectrum capabilities. Beyond the U.S. and British Armies, the French Army is one of the few land forces that not only maintains a substantial worldwide presence and a capability to fight at high intensity, but also is increasingly optimized for power projection.

The French Army has recently completed the ambitious restructuring program it launched in 1995, despite the handicaps of budget constraints imposed by five years of a center-left government from 1997 to 2002. These funding constraints hit especially hard at equipment maintenance and modernization accounts, in part because the Army was so heavily engaged in a series of deployments and overseas commitments. Nevertheless, despite the strains of this vigorous operational tempo, the French Army has completed the transition to an entirely new force structure, converting from a division to a brigade-centered force, and making the transition to an all-volunteer force.

During the same period, adding to its long-standing presence in Africa and the Pacific, the French Army began in 1992 a substantial long-term and continuing effort in the Balkans, where nearly 100 French soldiers have perished in the intervening decade. 

In addition, after September 11, 2001, the French Army was asked to mount a major effort in Afghanistan. There, French soldiers operate in close conjunction with their American counterparts, notably in training the Afghan Army, participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and recently deploying special operations forces in a combat role.

To this has been added deployments to the Ivory Coast, where after helping evacuate American citizens, the French force has been engaged in a risky but so far successful effort to keep the lid on an explosive situation. Despite having fewer soldiers than the situation would seem to demand, French soldiers have employed their sense of the terrain and the overall environment to prevent the emergence of still another failed state, of still another spawning ground for instability and a potential safe haven for terrorists.

Recently, the French Army has also sent units to the Democratic Republic of the Congo for similar purposes.
At the same time, the French Army continues to develop its Air-Land Operational Space concept, a parallel to the U.S. Armys Future Combat System. This programs scope and bold vision, like the British Armys FRES (Future Rapid Effects System) effort, show that high technology in the landpower arena is not a one-way street from the United States to Europe. 

Even in the domain of future high-intensity combat, the French Army remains centered around the soldier on the ground to maintain Contact With Reality as the current French Army doctrine states. Despite the deep tensions of the past year over Iraq, the French Army is more often than not still ranged solidly on the ground beside the Army of its oldest ally, the United States.

One may disagree with a nation's politics, but most coalition/allied soldiers I have worked with are very professional. Like the US soldiers, they want to do a good job.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

I don't think the problem has been the 'French Soldier' but rather the French Leadership.


----------



## CSM (Sep 8, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I don't think the problem has been the 'French Soldier' but rather the French Leadership.



I totally agree.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 8, 2004)

Thank you, CSM.

Kathianne, if you disagree the French Government and President, becase we didn't go to Iraq...it's not very clever : France - It mean french people - didn't want to do war in Iraq. In the word "democracy", ther is the greek words "demos", it means "people", and "cratos", it mean "force, power". So, democracy is "the power of the people". And the French people didn't want this war. France had choice, it was not like the WWI or WWII, and france chose to respect the french people position.
It's the definition of democracy...


One other thing : France - french people - didn't want to do the war. But Germany, I mean it people, didn't want too. Like the spanish people, like the italian people....and like the british people....the most important public demonstration against the war of Iraq was in.....LONDON ! over than 1,000,000 persons....it showed that the UK's people disagree with Blair's decision.
How can you rule on a democratic country when this country's people is against you because you don't listen to it ?


----------



## Merlin1047 (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Thank you, CSM.
> 
> Kathianne, if you disagree the French Government and President, becase we didn't go to Iraq...it's not very clever : France - It mean french people - didn't want to do war in Iraq. In the word "democracy", ther is the greek words "demos", it means "people", and "cratos", it mean "force, power". So, democracy is "the power of the people". And the French people didn't want this war. France had choice, it was not like the WWI or WWII, and france chose to respect the french people position.
> It's the definition of democracy...



A little hint PE - unless you like being jumped on every time you post, I'd suggest you put away the condescending attitude.  I doubt very much that even the liberals on this board require a refresher course in second grade word derivatives and definitions.

And as far as many Americans are concerned, the only definitions the French need to look up to explain their government's lack of support in Iraq is "greed", "corruption" and "pettiness".  That should pretty much cover the motives of the French government.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Thank you, CSM.
> 
> Kathianne, if you disagree the French Government and President, becase we didn't go to Iraq...it's not very clever : France - It mean french people - didn't want to do war in Iraq. In the word "democracy", ther is the greek words "demos", it means "people", and "cratos", it mean "force, power". So, democracy is "the power of the people". And the French people didn't want this war. France had choice, it was not like the WWI or WWII, and france chose to respect the french people position.
> It's the definition of democracy...
> ...



Gee, French Dude, I mistakenly thought you were discussing the calibre of the French soldier. My bad. Chirac and a sizable portion of the French public are cowards and blowhards.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 8, 2004)

Merlin, excuse me, I really didn't want to be condescendant, it was to argue...( and once I was on a US message board where a lot didn't know this word's ethymology...).

I never said that French government's motivations were ONLY this democracy power, but it's ione of this reason....you know, in France the street is listened by politics sometimes.
Sure, France had interests, but saying that USA were not hypocrit too will be a lie.
France had interest, but they got interests before the first Gulf war, these interests were really bigger than the ones of 2003, and they did war.......

Kathianne..................Why hate you france so much ? Even French and English, during their 900 years of war, were more friendly with the others.........
(just one question, how old are you ?)


My advice about French politics, because I think  I'm the principal concerned....I not agree thze French government. I think the Prime Minister should be changed. Nicolas Sarkozy's  - economy and industry ministery - economic politic is not really good : a keynesian politic....(or not far), and the facts speak for me : the supply side economy did better results.
The interior situation : except the antisemitic acts, not really big problems, the law about the seculary is respected...I just want that the bastards who put svatiska on jewish tombstones will be  catch by police soon...one of them has already been catch... - about that : 2 of the antisemitic acts were false : one was a "joke", one a simple attack of a jewish ceneter by a jewish man, ex-employed here... - France really not hate Jews....it is a total mistake....)
Justice : some reforms, It goes well, the french justice system is good - I know it I'm a law student -  but sometimes maybe too slow...
Defense : well, more money, a second aircraft-carrier soon, no problems.
Culture : good. yes, really good
(to a person who laugh when he read "ministre de la Culture" : it is a reral job : organize all the cultural manifestaion, all the summer festival, of music, theatre......propagate the culture everywhere in france........)



Don't be so hostile with me, I really don't want to be hostile with you


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Kathianne..................Why hate you france so much ? Even French and English, during their 900 years of war, were more friendly with the others.........
> (just one question, how old are you ?)


 My age is none of your damn business, but old enough to hold history, political science, and sociology degrees. Focus of history on Western Civ. 

The French of 17th and 18th C are dead, more than literally. The philosophs today are poseurs, and the French seem incapable of recognizing it. Take a look at what are going as best sellers in your shoppes, hardly enlightening, rather a 'pat ourselves on the back for being so damn superior. Perhaps the reason you can't help being condescending? Hmmm, just a thought. 



> My advice about French politics, because I think  I'm the principal concerned....I not agree thze French government. I think the Prime Minister should be changed. Nicolas Sarkozy's  - economy and industry ministery - economic politic is not really good : a keynesian politic....(or not far), and the facts speak for me : the supply side economy did better results.
> The interior situation : except the antisemitic acts, not really big problems, the law about the seculary is respected...I just want that the bastards who put svatiska on jewish tombstones will be  catch by police soon...one of them has already been catch... - about that : 2 of the antisemitic acts were false : one was a "joke", one a simple attack of a jewish ceneter by a jewish man, ex-employed here... - France really not hate Jews....it is a total mistake....)


 Interesting take, 'total mistake' sort of like in WWII? Methinks not. You may not be anti-Semetic, but it is a recurring theme in your oh so enlightened country and those you _really_ do influence, ie Belgium and Netherlands. Oh btw, that last sentence should give you an idea of how much your country should influence ours, not one whit! 

[quoteJustice : some reforms, It goes well, the french justice system is good - I know it I'm a law student -  but sometimes maybe too slow...
Defense : well, more money, a second aircraft-carrier soon, no problems.
Culture : good. yes, really good
(to a person who laugh when he read "ministre de la Culture" : it is a reral job : organize all the cultural manifestaion, all the summer festival, of music, theatre......propagate the culture everywhere in france........)[/quote] Enjoy and we wish you well. 



> Don't be so hostile with me, I really don't want to be hostile with you


Hey personally, I would not have bothered to post to you, not hoping to change your closed mind, you decided to call me out.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 8, 2004)

I am close-minded ? huhu, nice joke.



> The French of 17th and 18th C are dead, more than literally. The philosophs today are poseurs, and the French seem incapable of recognizing it. Take a look at what are going as best sellers in your shoppes, hardly enlightening, rather a 'pat ourselves on the back for being so damn superior. Perhaps the reason you can't help being condescending? Hmmm, just a thought.



France is proud of it past, its sure. But also know what you said. We are conscient of it, really. For myslef, I live it very well , I don't live in the past, but turn to the future.It's what France want to do too. It's why France progress, or try to do it, in all the domains. France know that it is no more the world mightest nation (we are no more since 1763, and after since 1815, we know it  ). France know that this nation is now the USA. France just want to be with the leader, it is understable,like UK or Germany. And France is , 4th in the G8, after USA, Japan, Germany.

Be sure that France know that it intellectual light of the XVIIIth c. is over. But France try always to defend the french culturally exception - it is not a myth - . This exception is in a lot of few thing, in fact, not in big big thing. It is maybe why lot of British ore even Americans come to live in France. France want to preserve it agreable lifestyle.
When you speak of the bestsellers, do you mean that the kind of best sellers make not french so superior ? (I 'm not sure to have all well understand).
If it is that, There are best sellers like in the other country - M Higgins-Clark, lot of foreign authors..but alos a lot of french books, about politic, society, USA, actualities.........


I'm not close-minded, be suer of it, if I were, I would insult you many times ago 
 read a lot, and try to nuderstand the maximum of thing in the world. It's why I'm here, to understant more and more, like about the presidential race. and i'm here also to make you change about the French and France.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I am close-minded ? huhu, nice joke.


As I said, I wasn't going after your posts, you sought me out. I was not 'joking' about the close mindedness. I do NOT hate the French. If you look at the source of that thread, 8236 and what he posts, you would consider the 'source' if you were open-minded. More than that, you would have to look over the 'body' of my posts, there are plenty to choose from. You must be careful though, to make sure they are not 'coming' from a postion of responding to something like you've started here, which tends to lead to hyperbole. 



> France is proud of it past, its sure. But also know what you said. We are conscient of it, really. For myslef, I live it very well , I don't live in the past, but turn to the future.It's what France want to do too. It's why France progress, or try to do it, in all the domains. France know that it is no more the world mightest nation (we are no more since 1763, and after since 1815, we know it  ). France know that this nation is now the USA. France just want to be with the leader, it is understable,like UK or Germany. And France is , 4th in the G8, after USA, Japan, Germany.
> 
> Be sure that France know that it intellectual light of the XVIIIth c. is over. But France try always to defend the french culturally exception - it is not a myth - . This exception is in a lot of few thing, in fact, not in big big thing. It is maybe why lot of British ore even Americans come to live in France. France want to preserve it agreable lifestyle.


 If France does not change it's 'lifestyle' you are going to find yourselves broke, sooner than later. Even Chirac gets that. 


> When you speak of the bestsellers, do you mean that the kind of best sellers make not french so superior ? (I 'm not sure to have all well understand).
> If it is that, There are best sellers like in the other country - M Higgins-Clark, lot of foreign authors..but alos a lot of french books, about politic, society, USA, actualities.........


Certainly not speaking of the Higgins-Clark ilk. LOL like any of use will look at 'pop' novels to judge a country? Pfffttt

No, speaking of the hate filled 'anti-American' tomes. Those that pooh pooh any take other than 'multi-nationalism.' Hey, I'm not saying that isn't an ideology worth embracing, many do. Just that the deck is not just stacked in France, the other side is not being presented, that is selective censorship. Anyone who suggests so, is simply labeled, 'simple,' 'course,' or 'uneducated.' We may be 'backwards' but you can go into any bookstore in the US and find plenty of books arguing the French/UN route, as well as the 'US first' route. Which country is more democratic? Open-minded? 



> I'm not close-minded, be suer of it, if I were, I would insult you many times ago   read a lot, and try to nuderstand the maximum of thing in the world. It's why I'm here, to understant more and more, like about the presidential race. and i'm here also to make you change about the French and France.


 Well, don't break your arm with that pat on the back.  I have purposely avoided posting to you, UNTIL you called out.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 8, 2004)

> No, speaking of the hate filled 'anti-American' tomes. Those that pooh pooh any take other than 'multi-nationalism.' Hey, I'm not saying that isn't an ideology worth embracing, many do. Just that the deck is not just stacked in France, the other side is not being presented, that is selective censorship. Anyone who suggests so, is simply labeled, 'simple,' 'course,' or 'uneducated.' We may be 'backwards' but you can go into any bookstore in the US and find plenty of books arguing the French/UN route, as well as the 'US first' route. Which country is more democratic? Open-minded?



Yes, some anti US books are in the bookshops, with best sellers. But if you look wel,you will see books called " Le declin de la France"; or a lot of book who spoke of the France's fall........(phantasm for some authors). And also books upon US, like upon Bush - not all are against him - , or books on the US side for Iraq war. even in french TV  : in some emission, talk between person for war and person against it.
Be sure that there is contradiction books, to respect all the point of view.




> If France does not change it's 'lifestyle' you are going to find yourselves broke, sooner than later. Even Chirac gets that.



why ? and why the " " ?


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> why ? and why the " " ?



While France is not included, those that are practicing the social welfare that allows for your 'lifestyle' will give you an idea:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/48.2pierson.html

France included:

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/papers/423__0332-Alesina11.pdf

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/001845.html

http://www.hrmguide.com/international/productivity.htm


----------



## Semper Fi (Sep 11, 2004)

Q: How do you take out a french tank?
A: The french have tanks?

-Spain cannot use fireworks anymore, the french will surrendur. 
-Also, a chapter of the Boy Scouts of America now own a section of france, can you guess why? Thats right, they surrendered. 
-The only war the french ever won was the french revolution, and that was against themselves.
-And what about the American Revolution? They showed up 15 hours before the war ended with a total of four-count 'em- four infantryman, and a lovely cannon that would look excellant on General Washington's mantle.


----------



## drac (Sep 11, 2004)

i see it is french bashing/joke on france type of season.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 12, 2004)

> Q: How do you take out a french tank?
> A: The french have tanks?
> 
> -Spain cannot use fireworks anymore, the french will surrendur.
> ...



If it would be funny, I'd probably laugh, but the fact is that I've read this kind of jokes maybe ten times.

Want a joke ? allright, you'll allow this to me, for all the jokes about France. thanks (it 'll certainly not make you laugh)

What's the difference between a british soldier in Iraq, a civilan in Iraq and a terrorist in Iraq ? Only the british and the civilian are killed by US soldiers...


----------



## Semper Fi (Sep 12, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> If it would be funny, I'd probably laugh, but the fact is that I've read this kind of jokes maybe ten times.
> 
> Want a joke ? allright, you'll allow this to me, for all the jokes about France. thanks (it 'll certainly not make you laugh)
> 
> What's the difference between a british soldier in Iraq, a civilan in Iraq and a terrorist in Iraq ? Only the british and the civilian are killed by US soldiers...



Yeah that did make me laugh. Not the joke itself, but on how ignorant people (you) could be. I for one would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my father and every other serviceman or servicewoman in the US Armed Forces. Those brave men and women changed their lifestyle, and now are even putting their lives on the line to ensure freedom in America and global security.You and I and the rest of USMB and the rest of the States owe them our upmost respect; something you obviously arent doing. I believe you are a lower form of life in America simply because you fail to acknowledge and respect those who are willing to fight, kill, and die to ensure you have your freedom to speak out. You have successfully abused that right by insulting our Soldiers. Why dont you move to France? You'll fit in quite well there, and we dont want you here.


----------



## Annie (Sep 12, 2004)

Semper Fi said:
			
		

> Why dont you move to France? You'll fit in quite well there, and we dont want you here.


Hey, he IS in France or at least is French citizen.


----------



## Semper Fi (Sep 12, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Hey, he IS in France or at least is French citizen.



Good, we can use a bit less air pollution here.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 13, 2004)

> Yeah that did make me laugh. Not the joke itself, but on how ignorant people (you) could be. I for one would appreciate it if you would stop insulting my father and every other serviceman or servicewoman in the US Armed Forces. Those brave men and women changed their lifestyle, and now are even putting their lives on the line to ensure freedom in America and global security.You and I and the rest of USMB and the rest of the States owe them our upmost respect; something you obviously arent doing. I believe you are a lower form of life in America simply because you fail to acknowledge and respect those who are willing to fight, kill, and die to ensure you have your freedom to speak out. You have successfully abused that right by insulting our Soldiers. Why dont you move to France? You'll fit in quite well there, and we dont want you here.



Semper Fi, my joke's aim was not to make you laugh,not at all. It was only a way for me to watch your reaction. And this one was exactly what I expect.
I say a lie, in my joke, and something bad about the US Army Corps. But you - I mean the persons on this board, with the "you" -  did EXACTLY the same thing about France and the French Army and history. I put only one joke, you have a FULL THREAD about the french joke.
My joke wounds you. It irritates you. It's a normal reaction.
I put this joke here to show to you how it can be boring or sometimes irritating, and even wounding, when people say sopething wrong about your country.
You have seen that it is not funny when I put this joke. So, see that for me it is not funny when I read 100 jokes about french, at the end it's boring.


So, this bad joke was only to show to you what I feel sometimes. I hope that this "therapy by the shock" will well operate.

So, it was really not to insult the US troops. only to make you realize.

You don't accept that I said it because your father is in the Army.

But read that : 




> Q: How do you take out a french tank?
> A: The french have tanks?
> 
> -Spain cannot use fireworks anymore, the french will surrendur.
> ...




If you say I have no humour, I will say the same thing for you, it is the same thing : 
you always insult France and french army and history.
My great-great-grandfather got the Military Cross during the WWI, my great-grand father fought in the Resistance, his brothzer died, killed by a german shooting squad, so....you'll easily understand that some of your jokes are not funny for me.


for the red sentences : The Leclerc, french tank, is the best tank in the world, his armour can resist to all.

second sentence : French revolution : 1789/1794 (I take a short time, i could also continue to 1799) : Not against French only : British landed in France, took Toulon, Bonaparte took again the place for France. 
France was attack by Austria, Prussia, and won at Valmy (1792), Jemmapes (1792), Wattignies (1793), Fleurus(1794).........

Only to show you that your joke are lies, like mine.

Again : really not to hurt you, to wound you, only to show how irritating this kind of joke could be.
Friendly


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 13, 2004)

The french have abandoned responsible policy and are fully consumed with being against america in whatever it attempts.  For that they deserve the greater share of ridicule.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2004)

```
[QUOTE=padisha emperor]Semper Fi, my joke's aim was not to make you laugh,not at all. It was only a way for me to watch your reaction. And this one was exactly what I expect.
I say a lie, in my joke, and something bad about the US Army Corps. But you - I mean the persons on this board, with the "you" -  did EXACTLY the same thing about France and the French Army and history. I put only one joke, you have a FULL THREAD about the french joke.
My joke wounds you. It irritates you. It's a normal reaction.
I put this joke here to show to you how it can be boring or sometimes irritating, and even wounding, when people say sopething wrong about your country.
You have seen that it is not funny when I put this joke. So, see that for me it is not funny when I read 100 jokes about french, at the end it's boring.


So, this bad joke was only to show to you what I feel sometimes. I hope that this "therapy by the shock" will well operate.

So, it was really not to insult the US troops. only to make you realize.

You don't accept that I said it because your father is in the Army.

But read that : 


 


If you say I have no humour, I will say the same thing for you, it is the same thing : 
you always insult France and french army and history.
My great-great-grandfather got the Military Cross during the WWI, my great-grand father fought in the Resistance, his brothzer died, killed by a german shooting squad, so....you'll easily understand that some of your jokes are not funny for me.


for the red sentences : The Leclerc, french tank, is the best tank in the world, his armour can resist to all.

second sentence : French revolution : 1789/1794 (I take a short time, i could also continue to 1799) : Not against French only : British landed in France, took Toulon, Bonaparte took again the place for France. 
France was attack by Austria, Prussia, and won at Valmy (1792), Jemmapes (1792), Wattignies (1793), Fleurus(1794).........

Only to show you that your joke are lies, like mine.

Again : really not to hurt you, to wound you, only to show how irritating this kind of joke could be.
Friendly[/QUOTE
```
Maybe you could send part of you army to protect people form the slaughter in the Sudan before everyone there is dead or do you consider that to be interfering with the sovereignty of of another country?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 13, 2004)

And you, why after Iraq don't you go to North Korea, lot of bad things here too.... Concentration camps, like the nazi's ones, and if your grandfather was arrested and puted in one of these camps, your father and you will be here too.
The humanitary situation is awful. o, I ask to you the same question.

For the atrocities in Sudan, the UNO has to do something.


----------



## drac (Sep 13, 2004)

Hey people do not forget, it was french who helped us to stop Godzilla in NY, by finding its nests. Viva la france


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 13, 2004)

Yes, the DGSE agents lead by Jean Reno 

PS : Semper Fi, hope you understand my way of action.


----------



## drac (Sep 13, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Yes, the DGSE agents lead by Jean Reno


he is one good actor (ops i mean DGSE agent)


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> And you, why after Iraq don't you go to North Korea, lot of bad things here too.... Concentration camps, like the nazi's ones, and if your grandfather was arrested and puted in one of these camps, your father and you will be here too.
> The humanitary situation is awful. o, I ask to you the same question.
> 
> For the atrocities in Sudan, the UNO has to do something.



Why does France need the permission of the UN to save people from genocide. Does your country even think this is a bit strange?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 13, 2004)

Yes, but i'm not at the head of the government.


You speak of Sudan, but lot of other countries need help.
And don't tell me that USA went in Iraq to save lives.....


----------



## insein (Sep 13, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Yes, but i'm not at the head of the government.
> 
> 
> You speak of Sudan, but lot of other countries need help.
> And don't tell me that USA went in Iraq to save lives.....




I suppose France was waiting for the US to do it again as we inevitably will do.  Too bad there are no other Free nations of the world that oppose tyranny and oppression of fellow human beings.


----------



## drac (Sep 13, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ....
> And don't tell me that USA went in Iraq to save lives.....


Actually i would argue part of it was to save lives. Maybe it was not directly implied or said at the begining, but i believe removing saddam and changing form of government in iraq saved more iraqis in the long run.


----------



## insein (Sep 13, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> Actually i would argue part of it was to save lives. Maybe it was not directly implied or said at the begining, but i believe removing saddam and changing form of government in iraq saved more iraqis in the long run.



That could definitely be argued but it was more so that we give those people a chance to truely live.  Not to save their lives.


----------



## Semper Fi (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Yes, but i'm not at the head of the government.
> 
> 
> You speak of Sudan, but lot of other countries need help.
> And don't tell me that USA went in Iraq to save lives.....



We did go into Iraq to save lives, the same reason we marched into Germany in '45.

-Hitler genocides the Jews and ethnic minorities
-Hussein genocides the Kurds *using WMDs*

-Hitler blitzes through Europe
-Hussein invades Iran _and_ Kuwait

-Hiter was a dictor and a tyrant
-Hussein was a dictator and a tyrant

Do you see any similarites here? If you dont think that going into Iraq wasn't a good idea, then you also disagree with WWII. If thats the case, then Im sorry that thousands of our boys ran into your hell-hole of a country and died to free you. If that is the case, you should at least pay us back for the deaths of thousands of husbands, boyfriends, fathers and sons.

And about your joke theory. Me making a petty crack about the french not having tanks is a far cry from saying my dad kills civilians. You are from france, correct? I'll put your white flag nation on a list of places not to visit.


----------



## drac (Sep 14, 2004)

insein said:
			
		

> That could definitely be argued but it was more so that we give those people a chance to truely live.  Not to save their lives.


It is definately true that one goal was to free iraqis and improve thier lives through the establishing of some sort of democratic goverment. I would suggest that saving lives comes as an extension of that. Also, Semper Fi has some good points on this topic in the post above.


----------



## drac (Sep 14, 2004)

Semper Fi said:
			
		

> .....You are from france, correct? I'll put your white flag nation on a list of places not to visit.


It is a beautiful country with great history/food..., it would be your lost, not his.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

Semper Fi, I think you have not understand what I mean in my message after the joke, or thazt you do it on purpose.

It was only to show you that how irritating this kind of joke can be.

For your last post : "white flag nation"....No.

And like said Drac, it will be bad for you, nt for me. i can see France every days. Neither do you. And even if you don't like French, you'll certainly like France.
(i don't like the actual man in the White House, but I like this builiding, it is nice     ).

Don't imagine that I am your ennemy.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Semper Fi, I think you have not understand what I mean in my message after the joke, or thazt you do it on purpose.
> 
> It was only to show you that how irritating this kind of joke can be.
> 
> ...



Let's see. You knock all we hold dear, ok except the building, the White House as an ediface. You say you are 'joking' or making an 'illustration'. Most of us have posted reasons we are at least 'angry' at France, as well as some other supposed 'allies.' You claim we hate, while you educate. I claim you are a hypocrite.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

> Most of us have posted reasons we are at least 'angry' at France, as well as some other supposed 'allies.' You claim we hate, while you educate. I claim you are a hypocrite.



Explain why I am an hypocrite. maybe I will change. 

You are allowed to be angry, lke everybody. It' s your feelings.
But you have not to be angry at France. Why ? It's easy.

You can be angry at Chirac, at the french government. But not at France, the country.
I saw people who didn't want to go in France or that they wasted drink french wines. Even the french fries were named "freedom fries".
It is stupid. the country of France has no relation with war : did the Eiffel tower, the Louvre, Paris... something against USA ? No.

I don't like Bush. But I don't hate USA, I find that it is a nice country, I went twice in.
I fond that some things are bad, but with no relation with Bush.

So, if you are angr, be angry, but at Chirac and Government.


(and if you say that the frnch population elect chirac and the government, i will answer that to you : Chirac was elected with more than 82 % because we didn't want of Le Pen. And after, Chirac was President, so French voted for the deputies who were on the side of chirac - right - because it is better for the country when the government and the President are on the same politic side.)


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Explain why I am an hypocrite. maybe I will change.
> 
> You are allowed to be angry, lke everybody. It' s your feelings.
> But you have not to be angry at France. Why ? It's easy.


 You act as though Americans are reacting in an unreasonable way to the treatment of the French. As you said yourself, there have been protests against the US by over a million marchers, mayber it was 50million? Whatever. (in the sake of language clarity, that was a weak attempt at sarcasm, hyperbole.) 

Hey, we both know you will not change, like I posted, which you ignored, we have no delusions that our opinions on Chirac or anything else you people hold opinions on are under our influence, nor should they be. IF only you all could learn the same. What a joke, European newspapers running mock elections on US presidential race. Like we SHOULD care???



> You can be angry at Chirac, at the french government. But not at France, the country. I saw people who didn't want to go in France or that they wasted drink french wines. Even the french fries were named "freedom fries". It is stupid. the country of France has no relation with war : did the Eiffel tower, the Louvre, Paris... something against USA ? No.


 Wrong you are in toto. IF the people of France were saying that US might not be 'all wrong' or 'had points' that would be different. Look at the above about the marches. Hey, you all feel free to march, protest, whatever. Just remember, actions have reactions. I would not buy French wine, cheese, perfume for any reason. If I was given as a gift, I would return if possible, I WOULD NOT pass it on. I do not HATE the French people. Just find the government and the electorate irrelevant and a threat to my country. Hey, no offense. 



> I don't like Bush. But I don't hate USA, I find that it is a nice country, I went twice in. I fond that some things are bad, but with no relation with Bush.


 Don't really care about your opinion. Now if you chose to move here and take citizenship, that would be different, in the meantime, we thank you for spending your money. 



> So, if you are angr, be angry, but at Chirac and Government.


 Notice not once did I tell you what to think, feel, believe? Do the same. I can be angry how and at whom I wish. 




> (and if you say that the frnch population elect chirac and the government, i will answer that to you : Chirac was elected with more than 82 % because we didn't want of Le Pen. And after, Chirac was President, so French voted for the deputies who were on the side of chirac - right - because it is better for the country when the government and the President are on the same politic side.)


 My opinion was that Le Pen would have been a disaster, but again, my opinion was worth what you paid for it.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

> My opinion was that Le Pen would have been a disaster, but again, my opinion was worth what you paid for it.



If you mean that if Le Pen has been elected  it would be a calamity, I agree.
I don't like this man.
And his party.
So i agree with you and fing that your opinion is worthy 

When you say that you 'll not buy french products, i think it is a little stupid.
Of course, it will prejudice to french produceers. But not really big. so you take money for people who have no realtion with french government's decision.
And also stupid because you prejudice to yourself. I explain : the french cheese, perfume, clothes, wines, food are world-known, they are really good.
So if you bought it before, it prejudice to you.
If you bought not it.....it was a mistake    (humour)


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> If you mean that if Le Pen has been elected  it would be a calamity, I agree.
> I don't like this man.
> And his party.
> So i agree with you and fing that your opinion is worthy
> ...



I've had plenty of French products, they are good. However, there are others that are also very good, some better. American made perfumes. Australian, Italian, and American wines. American cheese, not the type but made. American cheese only acceptable on burgers, though cheddar better and grilled cheese, munster is better, but Wisconsin munster rocks. 

See french guy, I choose where I spend my money. There are many producers who make goods that can meet my wants. I understand that the French people, even the guys in the wine fields, they too make choices. If they wish to boycott our country, well, we'll try to struggle through. If they choose to vacation in Iran, well, I wish them well.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

Of course the french cheese taste not good in Cheesebutrger : french cheese should not been eat hot. except  in a "fondue".

You can compare the french cheese with US cheese, it is really not the same kind of cheese. Like you can't compare the french camembert or Roquefort with the dutch Gouda. It is not the same thing. the 3 are good, but it is really not the same kind of taste.

For the wines, i know that Australia made good wines, but lots of australians produceers cheat : In France the wine become old in oak barrels. It take time. In Australia, they become old in iron barrels, in which people put some pieces of oak. It really not the same thing.
The expert say that the taste change, but the person who is not an expert in wine find that it is the same thing. Of course, the Australian, easier to do, are cheaper.  

Doesn't matter, I never say that you should have to buy french products.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Of course the french cheese taste not good in Cheesebutrger : french cheese should not been eat hot. except  in a "fondue".
> 
> You can compare the french cheese with US cheese, it is really not the same kind of cheese. Like you can't compare the french camembert or Roquefort with the dutch Gouda. It is not the same thing. the 3 are good, but it is really not the same kind of taste.
> 
> ...



Padisha, not laughing at you, but you have absolutely no idea, I think, how ridiculous you sound right now. Most Americans, unless they are trying to impress the boss or inlaws, care about which name is on a label for food, cheese or anything else. It's all about HOW IT TASTES or works. Surely goes with wine! Believe me, if it's made in old army boots but tastes fine, well to hell with your oak barrels. The Australians may or may not be using the wooden barrels, oak or not, but their wines kick ass, which many are discovering since they've started looking.


----------



## UsaPride (Sep 14, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Believe me, if it's made in old army boots but tastes fine, well to hell with your oak barrels.


 :rotflmao:    :rotflmao:    :rotflmao:


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

> Believe me, if it's made in old army boots but tastes fine, well to hell with your oak barrels.



Nice sentence 
the facts is that they - the wines - are good, but not SO good than the french wines - or the wines with oak barrels - 
And after, they - australians -  call their wine "Bordeaux"........ 

But it is not the subject, even if you beleive that French soldiers are long days drunk with wine. 

So i will post some things in relation with the french army


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Nice sentence
> the facts is that they - the wines - are good, but not SO good than the french wines - or the wines with oak barrels -
> And after, they - australians -  call their wine "Bordeaux"........
> 
> ...



Well then you should be happy that so many feel the way I do, more for you. Enjoy.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 14, 2004)

So, we'll see the french equipment, because the subject is the french army. If you want post pics of US army, do it, you're welcome.












pics of the AMX Leclerc, french tank, a really excellent battle tank, with a 120mm gun.







classic shape of FAMAS, french assault rifle. 







BV 2065 vehicles. Here in Kosovo






AMX 10 RC (here during the Gulf war)





armoured truck shooting. (again gulf war)





VAB (in Saudi Arabia)





VBL (Kosovo)


I'll put another pics, of the french artillery vehicles like the Roland 2, the LRM, TRF-1, AUF-1....,  with the french helicos - Tigre, Gazelle, Fennec... - and with the french soldiers of course, the Infantry - with the Legion Etrangère - the Special Forces.......

And another pics of the french fleet and Air Force  


Hope it was pleasant.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2004)

What is your point? We know you have soldiers and toys. You also have nuclear weapons, which Chirac seems to think is your best defense.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

after Kathianne, don't tell me I am close minded...YOU are close-minded.
You only listen to your own point of view, don't care about the other one, only if they think like you. When somebody think different things, you say he is close minded, because he think not like you......I think that I did and i still do more efforts to understand you - it means the people on this board - than You - Kathianne - to understand me.
the fact I 'm french makes that you are hostile with me, even if I say something good. I don't mean that everybody do that, some are fair here.  But the reputation : good example of the close-mind : if somebody think different, he would have a bad reputation. 
why ? because instead of trying to understand his point of view, or to correct him if he did a mistake, instead of looking too his thoughts, too see what he thinks, to see if it may be not be good, instead of all these things, some of you directly attack : no time taken to understand, to correct, directly insults or reply to show how stupid this person is.

I find it quite sad.
if you're so open minded Kathianne, try to take the time to nuderstand instead of reply with hostility because I think different things than you.

Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit.

(I don't say that for this reply from you particularly, but I have to say it)



Now, France : You know we have toys, good. I put these pics here only to show that your jokes are dumb. because I'm sure that some of you with the time begin to believe that french army is a big shit.
The toys like you said, are the best - or not far -  weapons of the world : Leclerc, FAMAS, Rafale, VBL..........

the nuclear weapon : France has this to protect itself, of course. But it is a weapon of dissuasion. 
USA and USSR believe also that the nuclear weapons were their best way of defense. otherwise, why did they product so many of nuke missiles ?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

Does France plan to use it's army only if it is attacked ? If a foreign country is threatening French lives elsewhere in the world would you use this army?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

for the moment, no contry threat France. Some terrorists, mayben, but not a full country.
So our army is used to make peace operation, like in Kosovo, or in Ivory Coast, in Haiti.

If terrorists threat France, I think that France would send the Forces Speciales and the COS - Special forces and the special ops HQ - to neutralize the terrorists. I don't think that we'll attack a full country.

the Army, even if it not use always, to attck, is a defense way. A strong army is a dissuasion force,  Like he nuke weapon.


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> for the moment, no contry threat France. Some terrorists, mayben, but not a full country.
> So our army is used to make peace operation, like in Kosovo, or in Ivory Coast, in Haiti.
> 
> If terrorists threat France, I think that France would send the Forces Speciales and the COS - Special forces and the special ops HQ - to neutralize the terrorists. I don't think that we'll attack a full country.
> ...



The Fench militarty is fairly good. They have pretty good equipment and is also fairly well trained. That being said, they do have some inherent problems. For example, their command and control (C2) structure is not as modern as the other equipment. This leaves them somewhat vulnerable against forces with better C2 and can make decisions faster. The French Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance infrastructure is somewhat antiquated as well when compared to the rest of their military, which is also a vulnerability.

I also agree that a strong military can be a deterent.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

and the Maginot Line was going to keep Germany out too! :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> and the Maginot Line was going to keep Germany out too! :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:



True enough. Every military has it's boondoggles (the US Army's York gun was a dismal failure!) but the Maginot Line was a biggy. Of course, the maginot line was based on the experiences of WW I. What is that old saw about "fighting the last war"?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

German turn around the Maginot line.
the conception was excellent, but the placement was bad.
And in was 64 years ago. Things change 

I agree with you CSM.
except on the point of the Inetlligence : the french intelligence is really good. several elite units are intelligence unit - example :  17e Hussard -.
These units can do everything and always be unvisible.
They're really good.
And the french special forces are excellent. the GIGN is the better-know, but it is not the better. even the specila force do intelligence mission, some of them are only fot that. THe french military in,telligence is really excellent.
If you spoke of the civil intelligence, it's different. I think that like you said, the structure can be changed.

But I agree about the command, some thing have too change....but it is in the way to.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

Maybe what makes Americans angry at the French is it's isolationism and the way it pressures the rest of the EU countries to do the same thing. If the French choose this path,they are in no postion to complain about other countries actions to secure world stability. You have to earn the right to criticize. How has France earned theirs?


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> German turn around the Maginot line.
> the conception was excellent, but the placement was bad.
> And in was 64 years ago. Things change
> 
> ...



When I say Intelligence, I mean the personnel and tools used to analyze the information gathered on the battlefield (info gathered by the units you list, including the Special Ops) and the ability to pass actionable information to the command structure so they can make informed decisions. Both the Intelligence and Surveillance (surveillance meaning things like UAVs, sattellites and other sensor platforms) part of the French army are not up to par with other Western military organiuzations. The French Reconnaissance units are well equipped and well trained and, as you point out, good at what they do.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

OK 

for the intelligence problem, the french HQ is in the way to chnage it : a new system will be launched : the BOA - Bulle Opérationnelle Aéroterrestre - 
3 components : firts : engines to explore the situation, and send their informations to the second component. aerial drones and terrestrial drones will be use.
second : other engines will carry the deciders and operators away of the ennemy direct fire.
Third : weapons will be taken by a third type of engines. this third component could use  lots of difference vehicles. they will obey to the orders of the 2 first components.


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> for the intelligence problem, the french HQ is in the way to chnage it : a new system will be launched : the BOA - Bulle Opérationnelle Aéroterrestre -
> 3 components : firts : engines to explore the situation, and send their informations to the second component. aerial drones and terrestrial drones will be use.
> ...



Yes, there is a big push among all the militaries of the world to modernize their command and intelligence structures. It is a complicated and expensive task.


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Maybe what makes Americans angry at the French is it's isolationism and the way it pressures the rest of the EU countries to do the same thing. If the French choose this path,they are in no postion to complain about other countries actions to secure world stability. You have to earn the right to criticize. How has France earned theirs?



The US has always had rocky relations with the French. Even before the American Revolution there was on again/off again, love/hate stuff going on in the colonies. 

In my opinion, what sways a lot of opinion in the US is a perceived hypocracy on the part of the French in their opposition to the US's stance on foreign relations and then France taking advantage (both overtly and clandestinely) of world events to their own advantage. For example, the French are highly critical of the US's interest in foreign oil, but at the same time pursues foreign arms sales, despite international agreements (which they agreed to) banning such sales.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

CSM said:
			
		

> The US has always had rocky relations with the French. Even before the American Revolution there was on again/off again, love/hate stuff going on in the colonies.
> 
> In my opinion, what sways a lot of opinion in the US is a perceived hypocracy on the part of the French in their opposition to the US's stance on foreign relations and then France taking advantage (both overtly and clandestinely) of world events to their own advantage. For example, the French are highly critical of the US's interest in foreign oil, but at the same time pursues foreign arms sales, despite international agreements (which they agreed to) banning such sales.



oh ya--that too!!


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

Maybe, but it is the french government.
this informantion was not well known before.

For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.

I only don't accept that a country do war when it please to it.
It's a kind of despotic justice.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Maybe, but it is the french government.
> this informantion was not well known before.
> 
> For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.
> ...



What would France do if a country killed 3,000 innocent Frenchmen and promised to kill more?


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Maybe, but it is the french government.
> this informantion was not well known before.
> 
> For myself, i was not for this war, but it was not hypocrite.
> ...



That is what being a sovreign power means: being able to decide as a nation on issues of military, economic, political matters, etc. It is not for France to decide when United States security is at risk, neither is it for the US to decide when France goes to war. They may (and do) try to influence each other in a variety of ways, but the final decision belongs to the individual nation. In my opinion, it would be just downright wrong for the United States to subvert the US Constitution to the UN Charter. If that EVER happened, I guess I would have to become an "insurgent"!


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

> That is what being a sovreign power means: being able to decide as a nation on issues of military, economic, political matters, etc. It is not for France to decide when United States security is at risk, neither is it for the US to decide when France goes to war. They may (and do) try to influence each other in a variety of ways, but the final decision belongs to the individual nation. In my opinion, it would be just downright wrong for the United States to subvert the US Constitution to the UN Charter. If that EVER happened, I guess I would have to become an "insurgent"!



ok.
But then, to take your argues, let France take it own decision for the war. 

For your last sentence : I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....





> What would France do if a country killed 3,000 innocent Frenchmen and promised to kill more?



For the moment, fortunatly, it is not happened.
But if it was the case, I think, like I said before, that france will not attack the whole contry, but just the terrorists, with special forces.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ok.
> But then, to take your argues, let France take it own decision for the war.
> 
> For your last sentence : I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.
> ...



pick off the enemy one at a time?---you better hope there aren't very many of em. The US has thousands of enemies to deal with.

How about assasination of leaders? Would that be part of Frances' strategy?


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ok.
> ...  I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. ...



 Exactly my point. I have no desire to see our Constitution changed because the international community thinks it needs to be changed. Obviously, you think France must accommodate the desires of other countries over the desires of its own citizens.

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....

Just because the United States signed and ratifies the UN charter, does not mean that we will disregard our own security. There is no major power on the planet that has not tried to circumvent a UN resolution at one time or another. France happened to get caught this time. Did the French respect what they signed?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

> Originally Posted by padisha emperor
> ok.
> ... I will speak of France : the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. ...
> 
> ...



bad faith : read the message until the end : 


> the Constitution is at the top of the rules' pyramid. It is the most important. but when France want to ratificate an international text, and when some dispositions are not agree with Constitution....we changed the things in the Constitution who are opposed with the text. It is logic : we would not change the text, because it is an INTERNATIONAL text. But the Constitution is always at the top, because France decides or not to sign this text. No obligation to do it.




See : if France want to sign a international text, it is because france think that it will be in it own interest : it will be good for france. or it means that France agree the text's dispositions.
So,France will sign it. But when the text has disposition not in conformity with the french Consitution, what we will do ? change the text ? noooooooo....it would be stupid, and impossible : why ? because this text has been signed by other nation. And France have to sign the same text, without changes...it is logic - what will say USA if France sign a different text as they sign too ? they won't agree... - 

So France change the Constitution - only the points with which the text is not in conformity -  . The procedure is complex. But the Constitution's revision is done by : the Congrès, reunion of the Parliament in Versailles, specially for that ; or by the french people, with a referendum.
You see : the popluation or the representants of it decide to change or not the Constitution.
It is democratic, it is the desire of the people.....



Adn really not at all an obligation : if we do'nt want to change some points of the Constitution, we do not it. 
If France  doesn't want to sign the text, the Constitution will be not modificated too.....


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

Again, my point is that I have no desire to see the US Constitution changed because of international ANYTHING. Period.

The US Constitution can also be changed in a complex process. Changing it to accomadate an international agreement is a dangerous thing to do. THAT IS MY BELIEF.

I understand what you are saying, however. That is why any treaty signed by the US has to be ratified by Congress or it is invalid.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

...i not agree.
if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.

If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.

In France, some things CAN NOT be change in the COnstitution. it is the samle thing in the US one ? the most important thngs, the things that the country is a democratic country, with democratic institutions....and several other things can not be change.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ...i not agree.
> if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.
> 
> If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.
> ...



Maybe you can change your behavior. Does the French constitution allow France to illegally trade with countries that are under UN sanction?. Perhaps the US should have asked for France to be punished by the UN prior to punishing Iraq.


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ...i not agree.
> if the international text is for you, for your interests, if it can help you, or preserve the peace in the wolrd....and several other things, it would be good for you to sign it.
> 
> If you sign, it is not the proof that your Constitution is less imortant, the COnstitution is always the most important, it is the proof that you're in a constitutionnal right state, not a legal right state.
> ...



 I think this discussion highlights the great difference between European thinking and the thinking of some of the citizens of the US. Naturally, if a treaty is in our best interests, we should and probably will sign it. There is no other reason I can think of that we should or would sign any treaty. World peace is not enough and I will demonstrate via exageration why: 

There are many throughout the world who believe that world peace would be enhanced by the disolution of the state of Israel. there are also those who believe world peace will be enhanced by the disolutiuon of the United States.
Neither of those are viable options. 

When a treaty is in our best interest AND happens to preserve world peace then it is the best of both worlds. If it happens to preserve world peace but is not in our best interests, then we SHOULD NOT sign it. In my opinion, the US SHOULD NEVER SIGN ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN ITS BEST INTERSTS. For that, you may call me arrogant!


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

To reassure you, I think that there is no states who want to sign a such treaty, about the USA 's existenz.  

When I spoke of the world peace, it was an example......of course this is impossible to assure the world peace, even if the nations who signed respect the treaty, other who didn't sign will not respect...

It was an example....

We are in agreement, Constitution is above all.

But don't you believe that a country can sign a treaty even if itr is not directly for it interests, but if it is for the welfare of the world ? Like the Kyoto protocol - example -

If a nation is able to sign a treaty even if it is not for itself but for the World, it is not a proof of weakness, but a proof of politic courage, of responsability.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

> Maybe you can change your behavior. Does the French constitution allow France to illegally trade with countries that are under UN sanction?. Perhaps the US should have asked for France to be punished by the UN prior to punishing Iraq


I've already explain that and answer to a quite same question, I'll find it and put it here ...


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> To reassure you, I think that there is no states who want to sign a such treaty, about the USA 's existenz.
> 
> When I spoke of the world peace, it was an example......of course this is impossible to assure the world peace, even if the nations who signed respect the treaty, other who didn't sign will not respect...
> 
> ...



Sometimes the best interests of a country happen to coincide with the best interests of the world. Most often not, however. Perhaps another point on which we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2004)

Treaties with no means of enforcement are worthless.


----------



## CSM (Sep 15, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Treaties with no means of enforcement are worthless.



BINGO!!!!


----------



## Annie (Sep 15, 2004)

CSM said:
			
		

> BINGO!!!!



and are laughed at: Versailles, anyone?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by CSM
> BINGO!!!!
> 
> ...



???
did you speak of the Versailles treaty of 1919, or the french Congrès in Versailles ?

sorry, but sometimes, hard to well understand the english, above all when I'm tired


----------



## Annie (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ???
> did you speak of the Versailles treaty of 1919, or the french Congrès in Versailles ?
> 
> sorry, but sometimes, hard to well understand the english, above all when I'm tired



1919. I forget the time difference.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

ok, thanks.


so, this was against the Versailles treaty ?


----------



## Annie (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ok, thanks.
> 
> 
> so, this was against the Versailles treaty ?



Please do not tell me you think this was a successful treaty? Are you sure you don't want to postpone to later, it's late for you.


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 15, 2004)

> Please do not tell me you think this was a successful treaty? Are you sure you don't want to postpone to later, it's late for you.



thank you, but I'm a great boy, I can stay awake late......

the Versailles treaty :
great points :

- Germany is the only responsable of the war
- the german army: only 100,000 - i believe - for home security, policy
- No aviation and fleet, or at least, very little ones
- demilitarization of  Rhénanie - Rheinland - 
- the german foreign assets are confiscated
- the german colonies are occupied by the winner
- Germany lost a part of her territory (90,000 km²)
- french occupation of Sarreland
- Germany is forbidden of SDN
- France recover Alsace and Lorraine, lost in 1871

And in 1921, Germany have to paid 132 billions of gold-marks. (2 and 1/2 years of national Revenue of 1914)


Of course it is very very loud, Germany take it like a Diktat.

But you can understand France and the others : It was the most awful war of History, everybody - or at least lots of people -  believed that after a such war, the men would never make war again.
So, in their mind, it was worst than the hell... the trench experience was awful...
France lost 1,500,000 soldiers, UK 800,000. So the winners want to have their revenge. it is understandable.


Of course, it is this "Versailles Diktat" who give to German the feeling of humiliation, and who helped Hitler.

But after the WWII, the winners didn't the same mistake like in 1919.


----------



## Annie (Sep 15, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> France lost 1,500,000 soldiers, UK 800,000. So the winners want to have their revenge. it is understandable.
> 
> 
> Of course, it is this "Versailles Diktat" who give to German the feeling of humiliation, and who helped Hitler.
> ...


Actually, not good, they should have looked at the American Civil War, it was only over less than 50 years. Wilson was warning them, especially concerning the whole of the European continent had been winding for war for years, not just Germany or Austria. 

The US did understand the problems inherent in that treaty, Wilson was too arrogant to deal in our country with our Congress. He was too impressed with YOUR leaders and his great mind-more hubris. While Congress would not approve the League of Nations, they did the Dawes Plan, trying to head off the backlash, sure to come. Altruism though, even self-serving altruism, (YES, I'm aware that's an oxymoron), could not survive the Great Depression.

The reason it didn't reoccur AFTER WWII was because of the US. The reason that Germany and Japan were/are economic superpowers is directly related to the fact that the US won the peace, if it did take many to win the war.


----------

