French call for stronger EU to keep America in check

[CSM]

such a bad faith and stupidity, it shouldn't be allowed, but forbidden......

Compare the situation in 1066 and in 2003........are you the biggest moron ever made or do you do it on purpose ?
First :
at this time, the wars between nations,, between States, were really not exceptionnal.
the states made wars like Bush say soemthing stupid - very often - : from 1066 to 1453 >> Wars against England : minimum 6 times. And Also against Flandres, against Germany, also with the Crusades......and that only for France...
Second thing : No international organisation like UNO : if a state wanted to make war to invade some territory ansd get it, or to have more gold or anything else, this State could do it if he had the logistic possibility.
No international regulation, by international institutions............

Now, when there is a war, the international community try to help to resolve the conflict. It is progress.

this discussion have no sense, it would be same as you wanted to compare and find ressemblances between a tomato and aht ewhite house......


1066 and 2003, no relation.
and a last example : if you say that 1066 - or any other date until the XXth century - is like 2003 or 2004, or 2001, so, the WTC attack the 9/11 would be a classicla act of war. because a such attack would be normal in a war in the Middle Age........so.......stop yet your thoughts, when they are so dumb, dear.

No, I leave that title to you

You missed the point; the point I was trying to make is that ALL nations (even France) have waged "unjust" wars at one time or another and so have no right to act superior to any other nation in that regard. I am not sure what the remark about Bush in this context is supposed to mean.

Again, off the point I was trying to make, but I would point out that though there was no such organization as the UN in 1066, there were some very complex alliances and many many treaties between nations...all of which meant nothing in the end (much like the UN today!)

Again, off the point, but nevertheless....the kind of help (as I have argued before) offered by the international community usually involves some nation's self interest as a primary concern (France's "solutions" prior to and during the current Iraqi situation is a PRIME example). This is hardly progress; it is a more subtle version of the same old thing.

You are correct (and we agree!) this discussion made no sense. Somebody totally misconstrued or misunderstood the point being made

EXACTLY!!! An act of war which the United States cannot and will not ignore. An act of war perpetrated by a medievil society on a soveriegn nation. The fact that the medievil society consists of a fascist religion and not a soveriegn nation is irrelevant. It makes fighting the war that much more difficult, but make no mistake; it is a war. You are correct there is no relation between 1066 and 2003 now that you have twisted the intent of my discussion.

Thank you for your assessment of my intelligence; though I find it very hard to do so, I will refrain from doing the same for you.

 

[padisha emperor]

Dillo, Indfochina was given back to france, but it WAS A FRENCH TERRITORY BEFORE !!!!!! given BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.

Indochina : french colony. I know, you - USA - can't understand this war because you can't understand the colonialism. it is an european thing, since the XVIth century.
but for France, Indochina was a french terrirtory, the Pearl of Far east. To try to make you understand : algeria, for USA it was a french colony. For France, it was more. more than a french territory, like Indochina. Algeria was likea piece of the french soil, was 3 departements, Algeria was like Provence, Britain, Aquitany.....a real administrative region. Like in the Metropol.

So, you see, different conception.
Indochina, for France, it was more than a simply colony.

Now, question, for you, is the Vietnam war more justificated than Indochina war ? more just ?






CSM.
Of course, every nation had injust wars. But an injust war during the Middle Age is not the same thing than today.
that was I mean.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, Indfochina was given back to france, but it WAS A FRENCH TERRITORY BEFORE !!!!!! given BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.

Indochina : french colony. I know, you - USA - can't understand this war because you can't understand the colonialism. it is an european thing, since the XVIth century.
but for France, Indochina was a french terrirtory, the Pearl of Far east. To try to make you understand : algeria, for USA it was a french colony. For France, it was more. more than a french territory, like Indochina. Algeria was likea piece of the french soil, was 3 departements, Algeria was like Provence, Britain, Aquitany.....a real administrative region. Like in the Metropol.

So, you see, different conception.
Indochina, for France, it was more than a simply colony.

Now, question, for you, is the Vietnam war more justificated than Indochina war ? more just ?






CSM.
Of course, every nation had injust wars. But an injust war during the Middle Age is not the same thing than today.
that was I mean.

hey Dish---- It ain't your territory if someone takes it from ya. Ho Chi Minh went to the commies for support because the US was tryin to support France----You got whupped and the US went in to try to stop what was now communism from spreading further--good idea t otry to stop communism---bad way to fight a war.

 

[freeandfun1]

This statement is so absurd it is laughable.

Indochiha war was more justificable than Iraq war : french territory since about 1850's under attack, so >>send the colonial troops
iraq : send US troops in a sovereign country to prevent an hypothetic attack from Iraq.

What is the difference? Was Vietnam not a soverign nation before you arrival in the 1850's? Vietnam as a nation dates back to 2700 BC. Does France, as a nation date back that far?

Now, I will tell you what the difference is.

In Iraq, the US will help the Iraqis hold free elections and then we will leave.

The French, when in Vietnam, subjugated the country and the people.

WOW - you are an IDIOT and not just playing one. I feel for ya.

 

[padisha emperor]

Dillo...
The war began between french and vietminh.
And after, the US helped the French. But not when the war began or in the first years of war. the first victories are 100% french, the USA at this time critisized the war.

good idea t otry to stop communism---bad way to fight a war.

Are you talking about Indochina ?
because same thing for Vietnam : to fight communism >> WAR.
but a difference : VN was not a US territory. French war was more legitim.

Freeandfun : of course, VN was a country. a nation, maybe.
Becsause be a country doesn't necessary mean to be a nation.
Look France : the real national idea was with Jeanne d'Arc, around 1430. But France exist since 496, or 843, it depends.
UK : not really a british nation. you know why ? one example : look at the rugby : tournament of the VI Nations : France, OK. Italy, OK. Ireland, OK. And for UK : England, Scotland, Wales. You now, the reputation of the Scottish is to hate english so far than the french.
Look, no a real nation, but with 3.
So, not sure that the Vietnam was a nation since 2700 BC.
but the age does'nt mean something : France and UK's colonies took 2/3 of earth, in these territory, pretty sure that some were older than these 2 countries.
Indochina was a french colony. It is a fact.
Your argue about the age is dumb : scientist think that human line appears in africa. Africa was a continent TOTALLY colonizated. France, UK, italy, Spain, Germany, portugal............not a free country. So....

If you want to play "who's the older", against Iraq you'll lose my dear. One of the older country of the world.
The US will help the iraqis, for free elections, and then will leave ?
hohohohohohohohoho.
USA did the war to organize election ? make me laugh !
When i hear thazt the US troops will maybe stay here 4 more years, I've doubts about the withdraw of these same troops after the elections.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo...
The war began between french and vietminh.
And after, the US helped the French. But not when the war began or in the first years of war. the first victories are 100% french, the USA at this time critisized the war.

Are you talking about Indochina ?
because same thing for Vietnam : to fight communism >> WAR.
but a difference : VN was not a US territory. French war was more legitim.

Freeandfun : of course, VN was a country. a nation, maybe.
Becsause be a country doesn't necessary mean to be a nation.
Look France : the real national idea was with Jeanne d'Arc, around 1430. But France exist since 496, or 843, it depends.
UK : not really a british nation. you know why ? one example : look at the rugby : tournament of the VI Nations : France, OK. Italy, OK. Ireland, OK. And for UK : England, Scotland, Wales. You now, the reputation of the Scottish is to hate english so far than the french.
Look, no a real nation, but with 3.
So, not sure that the Vietnam was a nation since 2700 BC.
but the age does'nt mean something : France and UK's colonies took 2/3 of earth, in these territory, pretty sure that some were older than these 2 countries.
Indochina was a french colony. It is a fact.
Your argue about the age is dumb : scientist think that human line appears in africa. Africa was a continent TOTALLY colonizated. France, UK, italy, Spain, Germany, portugal............not a free country. So....

If you want to play "who's the older", against Iraq you'll lose my dear. One of the older country of the world.
The US will help the iraqis, for free elections, and then will leave ?
hohohohohohohohoho.
USA did the war to organize election ? make me laugh !
When i hear thazt the US troops will maybe stay here 4 more years, I've doubts about the withdraw of these same troops after the elections.

The Vietnamese just wanted their independence and felt they deserved it for their part in routing the Japanese from thier country. They did not to want to be run by France and chased out the French. Is it so bad for French colonies to want their independence ???
Iraq is different--the US will no longer sit by and watch terrorism exist without confrontation. The confrontation is occuring politically,financially and militarily. If you think terrorism is OK, just sit on the sidelines and watch. If you think it should be stopped,help but get this straight----the US will not stop until terrorism stops---troops in Iraq or other places may stay there for a long time. Might be shorter if other countries would assist the US instead of supporting terrorist regimes for profit.

 

[padisha emperor]

The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
The railroads.......
of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789, but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.

 

[dilloduck]

The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
The railroads.......
of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789, but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.

May be not but with saddams history it was a strategically good place to start. Give up on the "creating more terrorists" claim. They were already there and already hated the US.The US has talked for too long trying to stop it and saddam could has stopped the attack of his country by simply abdicating and retiring to a nice compound outside of Paris.

 

[Merlin1047]

how many Iraqians attacked USA ?
and at this time - 1946/1954 - during the war, Indochina was a french territory, since the XIXth century.... >> war to protect french interests. It belong to the french empire.
Not a sovereign country attacked by USA......you can't compare.....

Gee - sorry. Didn't know you were so proud of the fact that the french held other nations as their personal serfs. But thanks for making my point.

And in regard to Iraqis attacking the US - perhaps you forget that it was terrorists who attacked the US. Yes, it was the al qaeda group, but to me, a terrorist is a terrorist. They only have different faces so that we can keep track of which ones we've killed.

Saddam sponsored and supported terrorist efforts. Even though he was not responsible for the 9-11 attack, he WAS responsible for funding and training terrorists. If there were terrorist training camps in france, being supported by the french government, then that would be justification to come and kick your butt too.

 

[Said1]

The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
The railroads.......
of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789, but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .

It depends on your definition of independance. Controlling public infrastures, while staying out of civil matters France played a huge role in perpetuating is hardly independant or respectful of human rights IMHO.

 

[CSM]

The Colonialism is today no more acceptable.
But it had some good sides : it gave to the colonies the modern civilization.
The railroads.......
of course, I'm happy that now these countries are independant, it respect the princips of the Declaration of the Human Rights of 1789, but some of theses countries were maybe not ready for it - independance - .
For the war against terrorism f course, good thing, terrorism is the Evil, the today's apocalypse knight.
But the USA should MAYBE make their "intervention" with a priority order. Iraq was probably not the most dangerous for the world peace.

It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. In France's view, making money from a cruel dictator (despite the agreements it pretended to adhere to as laid out in the UN resolutions) is far more noble than the USA's efforts to not only defend itself as a nation but to free an oppressed people. Of course it was all just so the US could get Iraqi oil (in France's view) which is nothing like French colonialism where entire regions of the world were subjugated for their natural resource. The hypocricy here is simply amazing....

 

[padisha emperor]

It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. In France's view, making money from a cruel dictator (despite the agreements it pretended to adhere to as laid out in the UN resolutions) is far more noble than the USA's efforts to not only defend itself as a nation but to free an oppressed people. Of course it was all just so the US could get Iraqi oil (in France's view) which is nothing like French colonialism where entire regions of the world were subjugated for their natural resource. The hypocricy here is simply amazing....

France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)

But thanks CSM to speak of past.
because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?

USA did probably moer awful things that France.

So, who is hypocrite ?

And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of this war in 2003.
Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
USA gave liberty, maybe, but for which prize ?

 

[no1tovote4]

France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)

But thanks CSM to speak of past.
because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?

USA did probably moer awful things that France.

So, who is hypocrite ?

And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of this war in 2003.
Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
USA gave liberty, maybe, but for which prize ?

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=33562

General Henri Poncet said late Thursday: "I confirm there have been rapes. There were atrocities, tragedies for a certain number of women. I will not comment further out of respect."

So what is happening now on the Ivory Coast? It doesn't appear that they are giving great freedom to those people! Quite the opposite.

I don't think that France can sit on a pedestal that they have already knocked themselves off of and throw any stones. Look to your own backyard before attempting to fertilize mine.

 

[Said1]

France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)

You're starting to sound like the scorned Frenchmen in Apocolypse Now, babbling about rubber plants. I don't think I'd be out of line saying the benefits of westernization brought to the colonies went largely to the colonial powers, be it Britain, France or the Dutch. Why else would expansion of colonial territory be so important?

But thanks CSM to speak of past.
because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?

Why don't you just admit to what France was up to in Iraq, you'll feel better with that chip off your shoulder.

And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of this war in 2003.
[qutoe]Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
USA gave liberty, maybe, but for which prize ?

France has been meddling in north Africa for over 100 years, and now sits back and watches the blood bath. Intersting interpretation, what's in the prize box Jean?

 

[padisha emperor]

no1vote4, i think you miss the point.
Some ladies were rape, but not by the french soldiers : FRENCH ladies were rape, by Ivorians, NOT by French.......
The french soldiers rape nobody.........

France has been meddling in north Africa for over 100 years, and now sits back and watches the blood bath. Intersting interpretation, what's in the prize box Jean?

Said1 :
UK was in palestine, now big trouble.
France and UK were in africa, now big trouble.
In algeria, big and awful atrocities in the 90's.
But it is not the fault of France, or of the ancient colonial power. Religious problem.
You nkow, these country were under the rule of France, UK, or others. So, not ethnical problems too, not a lot, because the colonial power make a police mission. Now, these countries are independant. For some of them, they fight for their independance.
So, they are sovereign. France has not the right to put her nose in their own business.
I want to say that you can't say that France or UK are respàonsable of the actual events, or not of all these events.
Some have religious origins, who appear afetr the independabce >> no relation with the colonialsim. Maybe even, the colonial power had maybe stop the progression of this fanatism. maybe not. Who knows ?


For the ivory coast intervention, and for those you say it is illegal and illegitim :

France receive a mandate from UNO, to act and send troops in this country
France did an interventin of "international police".
This kind of intervention os admitted by the International laws : France can send the troops to protect the lives of the french citizens in this country, if there is a big danger.
france did it in 1978, in Kolwezi : the Legion's paras were dropped upon this city of Zaïre, to save the French.

 

[onedomino]

What matters is the economic and military implications of relations between France and America. In this arena, France has shown itself to be a clear and present danger to the United States.

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

False friends
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Published December 28, 2004

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041227-090141-4815r

During the recent presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry assailed President Bush for alienating key U.S. allies, evidence he maintained of the incumbent's lack of foreign policy acumen and an arena in which the challenger insisted he could "do better." Implicit in this critique was the belief that such allies -- notably, the French -- were anxious to be our friends, if they were not mistreated by America's leader.
In fact, it is increasingly clear the French government under President Jacques Chirac is bent on policies antithetical to U.S. interests. They are not simply anti-Bush, they are anti-American and anti-Atlaniticist. The latest example is Mr. Chirac's determination to have French and other European weapons manufacturers arm Communist China as part of what he has called "a necessary rebalancing of the 'grand triangle' formed by America, Europe and Asia."
This is, of course, hardly the first time that French policy toward the United States has been defined by balance-of-power considerations. Indeed, the decisive assistance of France to the American Revolution did not reflect affection for those bent on ending royal misrule -- a phenomenon its own king would be murderously subjected to soon after. Rather, the motivation was to weaken France's age-old rival, Britain, by helping to cut loose her American Colonies and sapping her wealth in a costly war to bring them to heel.
Just a few years later, though, weakening the United States seemed in France's interest. France engaged in predatory acts against American shipping and backed subversion here at home, culminating in the so-called XYZ Affair that roiled Franco-American relations in this country's earliest days. In the 19th century, the French helped Southern secessionists and would have recognized their independent Confederacy had timely and decisive Union victories not made it clear which side would prevail.
Nearly a hundred years later, President Charles de Gaulle repaid U.S. help in the liberation of France by cultivating close ties with the Soviet Union and expelling NATO headquarters from Paris. Jacques Chirac was no less troubled by notions of alliance solidarity when the French government reportedly assured Saddam Hussein it would oppose any U.N. authorization of the use of force against his regime.
Seen against this backdrop, Mr. Chirac's calculation that Europe must strengthen China militarily at America's expense is not just a one-off betrayal of an ally. It is part of a geostrategic tradition that renders France, at best, an unreliable partner in international affairs and, at worst, what the French call a "faux ami," or false friend.
Unfortunately, as this column has noted repeatedly in recent months, France is striving to impose its strain of anti-Americanism on other European states that have traditionally preferred the trans-Atlantic partnership to French or Franco-German domination of their Continent's affairs. The principal vehicle for enforcing the latter over unwilling states -- notably, Great Britain and nations Don Rumsfeld has described as "New Europe" -- is the new European Constitution.
If this draft constitution is ratified by voters in Britain, France and a half-dozen other countries, the European Union will have authority to "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy." The U.S. can forget about "special relationships" and strong bilateral ties, let alone "coalitions of the willing," with states bound by such a compact.
Even before such an authority gets conferred upon unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris is working on a dress rehearsal: its bid to "rebalance" American power by augmenting that of Communist China. France and the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, are pushing hard for lifting an embargo on arms sales to Communist China imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre. All other things being equal, the French and Germans expect, with help from a double-dealing British government, to dispense by next spring with opposition to such a step from the Netherlands, New European states like Lithuania and the European Parliament.
The implications of European weapons manufacturers joining Russia in arming China to the teeth are quite worrisome. Thoughtful observers, like acclaimed author Mark Helprin, warn of China's rising application of its immense accumulated wealth to strategic advantage. The latter include: neutralizing U.S. dominance in space and information technology (Chinese acquisition of IBM's personal computer division is not an accident); moving aggressively to dominate the world's critical minerals and other resources (especially those relevant to its burgeoning energy needs); establishing forward operations in choke-points and other sensitive areas around the globe (including, in our own hemisphere, in Cuba, the Bahamas, the Panama Canal, Brazil and Venezuela); and acquiring financial leverage by purchasing vast quantities of U.S. debt instruments.
Retaking Taiwan is an immediate target of such power. Dominance of Asia and the Western Pacific are in prospect. And China aspires to exercise global superpower status in due course, if not short order.
For years, Washington has paid lip service to -- and often actively promoted -- European unification. If, however, the upshot of unity is to be, as seems likely, a Continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere, the United States must make discouraging such developments an explicit part of its foreign policy.
Mr. Chirac's determination to provide weapons that may be used to kill Americans in the event China decides to attack Taiwan should be a wake-up call. False friends are not allies. They should not be entitled to the preferential treatment accorded the latter. Mr. Bush is right that democracies traditionally don't fight democracies. But when they equip authoritarian regimes to do so, they must pay a real cost.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

 

[CSM]

France gave modern civilization to her colonies. (question : for France, it is "her" or "it" ?)

But thanks CSM to speak of past.
because, of course, getting money from an awful dictator is not more noble than free a people, but maybe more than put dictator intsead of democraticly elected leader, like in Chile. you will say, the cold war justified that...so, the Human rights and democracy is depending of the moment ? In front of communism, these majors principes count for nothing ? that's it ?

USA did probably moer awful things that France.

So, who is hypocrite ?

And : you see only the bad sides of colonialism, and only the good of the war in iraq.
Look at the good sides of colonialism and at the bad ones of this war in 2003.
Iraq 2003 : free a people from a dictatorship, but put the country in a indescriptible mess, in a fucking chaos, with terrorist attacks....So, can we speak of a real liberation ? no more liberty of go everywhere, because the threats of attempts are too dangerous.......
USA gave liberty, maybe, but for which prize ?

You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad.

You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.

You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns.

I reject ALL of your proposals.

The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions".

The United States is indeed the greates nation in our time. No amount of jealous rationalization will change that. Neither the UN nor Europe nor religious fanaticism will make us as evil as you and others like you want the rest of the world to believe. Yes, your lies will be well recieved in some parts of the planet, just as Lucifer's rhetoric has worked its magic througout the ages; and some day it may even have the effects you so obviously desire. The US just may someday be destroyed and become a third rate nation as France, Germany, Spain and the other European nations are today. Many will proudly proclaim the demise of the world's remaining superpower (you included, no doubt) and joyfully trumpet yet one more great achievement and add it to their country's glorious history. When that day comes, the world will be a far far worse place than it has ever been.

 

[NATO AIR]

hey padisha, you guys figure out which frenchies exactly bankrolled and armed Hutu Power during their slaughter of 800,000 people in rwanda 10 years ago?

your country is a sick joke, a cancer on europe and a traitor to america, as well as a horrible "benefactor" to your precious colonies

thanks for the non-help in afghanistan and iraq

 

[CSM]

hey padisha, you guys figure out which frenchies exactly bankrolled and armed Hutu Power during their slaughter of 800,000 people in rwanda 10 years ago?

Hey they brought those uncivilized savages the railroad...er...didn't they?

 

[padisha emperor]

You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad.

You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.

You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns.

I reject ALL of your proposals.

The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions".

The United States is indeed the greates nation in our time. No amount of jealous rationalization will change that. Neither the UN nor Europe nor religious fanaticism will make us as evil as you and others like you want the rest of the world to believe. Yes, your lies will be well recieved in some parts of the planet, just as Lucifer's rhetoric has worked its magic througout the ages; and some day it may even have the effects you so obviously desire. The US just may someday be destroyed and become a third rate nation as France, Germany, Spain and the other European nations are today. Many will proudly proclaim the demise of the world's remaining superpower (you included, no doubt) and joyfully trumpet yet one more great achievement and add it to their country's glorious history. When that day comes, the world will be a far far worse place than it has ever been.

whow....never see so much stupid things in only one message.



Take it part by part :

You prove my point every time you post. Everything France does or did is good...everything the US does or did is bad

No. I mean : look at the good sides ofr france and at the bad for USA. both made and make still good and bad things.
But you only look to the bad sides opf france, and to the good of USA : for you, USA has no default, is the most perfect nation, and France is a fucking nation, condamned to be destroy.....look to some foreigner newspappers, ask some europeans, who are not for USA and not against : USA are not the most perfect nation.

You present yourself as knowledgeable and enlightened and would have us believe that citizens of the United States are stupid and greedy. You would have us believe that Europeans are far superior to US citizens. You would have us believe that the US, as a nation, is arrogant and cruel and without regard for international concerns.

never say that.
But the fact is that you REFUSE to the the TRUTH when this truth is good for France, when it give the good role to france, you refuse, and say that i'm stupid. But it is not me : fior History, it taken from BOOKS. some written by english or US guys....
And if some Europeans think that the US guys are dummies, it is because, and admit it, in a lot of central states, the young people are not rerally enlightned...Some TV report ask youngs from a city in Montana, they ignore where was france, who was UK's pirme minister, who was Jacques Chirac.....
Some Us citizens are unnable to put Spain on a world map !
Fortunatly, on the coast, it is often better, like in NY.
But be sure, I don't globalize to the whole USA.

You present French colonialism as a good thing for those countries that France dominated (France brought those people the railroad???); you would have us believe that France's motives were altruistic in colonizing other nations; you would have us believe that France has not and does not interfere with other soveriegn nations or international politics while looking out for its own interests. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words...France's actions scream of hypocricy.

never say it was agood thing. I just say that it had not only bad sides. Some sides were good.
Do you wabnt an example dear :
the US territory was a british colony for the east, a french for the middle, a spanish for the south.
And the uS nation came from the british colony. So.....
the colonialism give to USA progress......if this phenomene was not here, USA would have not exist.

Another good point : France forbide strictly the slavery in 1848 in the french colonies. So, no more slavery in 2/5 of the african territory....


But of course, colonialism is really bad for the colonized people if you think to the right of these people to chose their own way.
this is a big bad side.

The United States and its citizens are some of the most generous people on the planet. This country has done more for the advancement of civilization, science, technology, medicine and just about any field of human endeavor you could care to name than any nation that ever existed. This country did more for international good will than any other country in Europe or Asia. The people of the United States did this without colonizing anyone. We have no "Grande Armee" led by any Napoleons. We are a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people". Our military is made up of citizens or soon to be citizens. We do not rely on mercenaries or disenfranchised, desperate foriegners to form our "Foriegn Legions".

Most generous people ?
I believe that the people who give the more money to the poor countries are the scandinavian countries and France, and some others....not USA.

DOn't forget that the US progress in science, who are awesome, were authorized by the european progress in all ther History.
Don't believe that only USA did something for Humanity.....

Why do you speak of the "Grande Armée" ? pof Légion Etrangère ?
first, know that USA are not against the idea to have a corps like the Légion etrangère....

Second : know, dear, that the "Grande Armée" came from the french revolutionnary army, an army of citizen, a national army.
Maybe more than the US continental army of 1776
So, the french military is made of citizens....WWI and WWII : all the french male in age to wear uniform >> army.
And for Legion : when a soldier is wounded >> he become french citizen - when he is not -

And the Grande Armée at the end had some foreigners, from the occupied territory.
But the Grande amrée was french.
in 1805, at Austerlitz : only French...

And UAS are not in good position to criticized to foreign way of war : during the Secession war, the Union use a lot of ZOUAVES...... the Zouaves came from the french army : the US spectator of Crimea War were surpised and admirated in frony of these soldiers, in Sebastopol >> USA wanted to have their own corp of Zouave.
And for the Gen. BLENKER division ? in Bull run ? all foreigners.


You're too proud of your nation, you don't see the troubles, refuse to see the truth when it hurts your conception of the perfect USA nation......