Wow... hilarity at it's finest...

[Figrin D'an]

Go to Google, type in "French Military Victories" (without quotes), and click the "I'm feeling lucky" button.


:lol

[Kar'h'tzen Shaed]

Ah, it's funny because it's true.

The French have only ever won one war - the French Revolution - and that was, arguably, because they were fighting Frenchmen. :)

In all seriousness, though, I love the French. They have good food and hot women.

[Figrin D'an]

Newsday did an article about the parody site that was done to mimic the Google search page. The site itself is down... probably too many hits... but there are several others have screen caps of it.

[Dark Lord Dyzm]

I posted something like that awhile ago at Meras, let me find the link.

Here

http://meras.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6349

[Lilaena De'Ville]

LMAO that's hilarious.

And France is cool. I love Paris. They may be crap at politics, but they do culture really well. France has a lot of culture....mainly in their cheese.

[Dark Lord Dyzm]

something they have in comman with Wisconsin then...
Stupid Cheese Heads...

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Dark Lord Dyzm
something they have in comman with Wisconsin then...
Stupid Cheese Heads...

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?

[Sanis Prent]

I've never liked anything French, except for Julie Delpy. Funny stuff. :)

[ReaperFett]

Never liked any version of the Three Musketeers? Or Laetitia Casta? Or JEAN RENO MAN??????

[Hart]

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys....

[ReaperFett]

Who were instrumental in you gaining independence. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good slice of Xenophobia.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Never liked any version of the Three Musketeers?

I liked the one with Julie Delpy in it :p

[Hart]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Who were instrumental in you gaining independence. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good slice of Xenophobia.

Hmm, you know what would've been an attractive idea? Turning France into an American colony after World War II. We certainly could've if we wanted to. Maybe we would've split a peice with England and Russia like we did with Germany. I think it would've been a great idea. Maybe turn it into an agricultural state where all profits go to American investors. Wait.... instead we chose to give them billions in aid and handed the country back to all the Frenchmen-minus-the-alpha-males that almost all died in the war? Wow.... we're a really nice nation.

France helped us in the Revolutionary War for their own purposes, not ours. If anything, the US Revolution did little other than divert some British attention on kicking Froggy butt in Europe and around the world. If we didn't go to war against Germany in WWII, France would either be speaking German, or more likely Russian right now.

And if it wasn't for the American Revolution, then France wouldn't have had their own revolution when they did. And if France had not become a democracy, then England certainly wouldn't have allied with it in WWI. And without England in WWI, the US wouldn't have gotten involved. So I'm sorry that when one of history's largest pity states has the power to veto the actions of the US and Britain (two of the most powerful nations on the face of the Earth), I don't see why they should be at all significant.

[ReaperFett]

If you think the UK is one of the most powerful nations, you really need help. If were top 10 in "power", Id be suprised

[Morgan Evanar]

You are. You're one of the wealthiest nations on earth with one of the best equiped militaries.

[ReaperFett]

SA80 falls apart, chews your hand up, is commonly disliked. Helecopters could only last 30 minutes in the desert before malfunctioning. Tanks couldnt even MOVE in the desert.


We are rumoured to be the reason Iraq wasnt attacked last year. Because we ourselves couldnt fight. All that above is what we suffered from at the time.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
SA80 falls apart, chews your hand up, is commonly disliked. Helecopters could only last 30 minutes in the desert before malfunctioning. Tanks couldnt even MOVE in the desert.


We are rumoured to be the reason Iraq wasnt attacked last year. Because we ourselves couldnt fight. All that above is what we suffered from at the time.

If your forces were commonly created for desert fighting, I'd be worried. It's not what it's for. I do understand that in urban combat, Brits are very good and that's what they are doing right now. That and training USA troops.

Aust troops are built around the fact 80% of Aust is a desert with east coast costal urban scum. Out of the allies, Aust forces would be best suited to Iraqi conditions, cause that's the conditions right here.

[Admiral Lebron]

Every nation is good at something... France's just happens to be losing.

[ReaperFett]

Marcus, I believe that while our forces arent created FOR desert fighting, it is seen as the main area of fighting.

[Hart]

Correct me if I'm wrong (really, I may be wrong) but isn't Great Britain second in the world in military spending? The reason why it doesn't appear it is because it's dispersed around the world and so it's difficult to move and collect your assets quickly.

[Sorreessa Tarrineezi]

Originally posted by Admiral Lebron
Every nation is good at something... France's just happens to be losing.

:lol ow laughed too hard at that.....

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Hart
Correct me if I'm wrong (really, I may be wrong) but isn't Great Britain second in the world in military spending? The reason why it doesn't appear it is because it's dispersed around the world and so it's difficult to move and collect your assets quickly.

I believe the Chinese are higher on that totem pole.

[ReaperFett]

Correct me if I'm wrong (really, I may be wrong) but isn't Great Britain second in the world in military spending?
When a whole run of SA-80s has to be scrapped due to being as useful as a pea-shooter, you have to buy some more.

[Beldarine]

Back to funny French stories.. This one gave me a chuckle.

FORMER PRESIDENT George H. W. Bush, responding in a Newsweek interview to accusations of "failed diplomacy" levied against his son:

What do you think is going on with France?

[Pause] They're French.

Any elaboration?

Nope.

I guess that's all that needs to be said. :)

[Hart]

Personally, I say we reform the United Nations. France should be out. Maybe we should give the seat to either India (with the most populated democracy on the planet), Japan or Germany (with their huge economies), or maybe both. Australia seems to also deserves some consideration maybe. And make sure that the Chinese vote in the security council goes to the commies and stays there. They're poised to become a great power in 20 years or so, and definitely deserve to be listened to. Otherwise, the UN will probably become useless in the next 10 years.... all because of France. Well, that's only if we do stop the proliferation of nuclear arms. Once madmen like Saddam, Kim, or some of those princes in Saudia Arabia get their grubby hands on them, we'll have to completely renovate world order.



I believe the Chinese are higher on that totem pole.
Then I guess that it's that Britain is second in military spending per capita.

[ReaperFett]

What do you think is going on with France?

[Pause] They're French.

Any elaboration?

Nope.

I guess that's all that needs to be said. :)
Jeez, thank god Clinton came in :rolleyes



Personally, I say we reform the United Nations. France should be out. Maybe we should give the seat to either India (with the most populated democracy on the planet), Japan or Germany (with their huge economies), or maybe both. Australia seems to also deserves some consideration maybe. And make sure that the Chinese vote in the security council goes to the commies and stays there.
First, thats not the UN, thats the SECURITY COUNCIL. Which isnt a thing where people just throw out other countries.


Otherwise, the UN will probably become useless in the next 10 years.... all because of France.
No, it will be because of the UK and the US. Personally, I think the UK should lose their SC seat before any others. There's only one there playing illegal war that is droppable, and that's us.

[Hart]

I said REFORM the UN. And I did mean the security council. And sure, they most certainly can throw out other countries. It's in their charter.

Ummm, you think the UN will become useless BECAUSE of the US and England? The UN would be useless without us! We're the ENTIRE intimidation factor behind the UN's resolutions. If we did send UN Troops to Iraq, the makeup of the forces wouldn't be much different than it is now. France on the other hand, just likes to play armchair quarterback for the sidelines. And unless we start giving some more recognition to significant powers (which France is not included), the UN will become moot.

[Hart]

Plus, England won't be kicked out as long as they have their own veto powers in the SC. That'll be almost impossible, because they'd be able to veto and resolution against them.

[ReaperFett]

Just because they didnt agree with you.

[Hart]

Can you give me ONE reason why France should be a permanent member of the security council?

French leaders refuse to lead. Just because they were elected on a no-war platform, they suddenly don't feel it's their responsibility to maintain international world order. And not only do THEY not want to take part, they'll veto anyone else trying to for spite. SIMPLY for political spite and polling within France. Throughout the past century, all they did was criticize those with actual responsibility. The US has the responsibility as the superpower to maintain order, and so our decisions have weight behind them. I wonder, honestly, what France would do if they were the superpower and they were given our responsibility. they probably wouldn't be acting that much different than the US is now.

[ReaperFett]

Can you give me ONE reason why France should be a permanent member of the security council?
Because the idea is that you have views from all around, not views that agree with you?

IIRC, France has a permenant spot due to being a founder member, along with USSR/Russia, UK, US and China.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

There ARE other members btw ;)

[Beldarine]

Yes, Fett.. But world organizations need to be able to change with the times. The French have no place on the U.N. security council. India, Japan, and yes.. Germany, all have stronger economies and stronger military might. France is third rate at best when it comes to military power, and they do not contribute anything at all useful to the world's economy. Besides a limited nuclear capability, they are effectively useless.

The U.N. has outlived its usefullness in my POV. First indicator is that they rotate the S.C. members. Yes yes.. I understand the reasoning for it. But when Angola, Cameroon and Chile are in a position to shape the world's policies there is something wrong. These three countries combined probably don't have the GNP of Germany. Hell, I'll even go as far as to say they don't have the combined GNP to match Belgium.

They have become totally ineffective. They decided that military action should be taken in the Kosovo crisis, yet noone actually wanted to do anything until the U.S. threw their hands up in disgust and said they would lead.

And to top it all off.. Apparently Russia, one of the permanent members, is violating the U.N. Sanctions against Iraq (sanctions they helped put into place) by selling them night vision goggles, anti-tank missiles and radar jamming equipment.

It's time for the U.N. to disband or restructure. But it has become the laughingstock of the entire world, because now (because of France's posturing and belief of their importance in the grand scheme of things) everyone sees how ineffectual the body truly is.

[Sanis Prent]

I agree. The UN needs severe reform.

[ReaperFett]

Id rather you just left the UN and let the rest of us carry on. It works fine, people just suddenly seem to have a problem with it because they wont attack Iraq.


Bel, you say about countries like Cameroon not having a place. But why not? There's 15 places. You can afford to have some smaller countries. The idea is to debate and decide, not flex your muscles in a "Whos economy is bigger" contest.

[Hart]

France was a founding member, yes, but not initially when the plans were drawn out. FDR wanted there to only be four permanent members: US, USSR, UK, and China. Unfortunately, with FDR's death, Winston Churchill was given more say in the matter and allowed France into the mix. But as the world evolves, so must its institutions. It's simply the laws of nature.

And don't for one second think that France deserves any less suspicion for their motives than we do. France is anything but a pacificst nation, and is always all too willing to use force when they're one of the main ones to benefit from it. It's unfortunate that France, one of the most closed and secretive European nations in the history of the world, is automatically given more moral weight than the United States and England, arguably the two most benevolent major powers in the history of the world. Must people hate us for our power? That's not reason, that's spite.

and let's not forget there was already a resolution in the UN #1440 (I believe) that did allow for war against Iraq if they didn't meet UN demands. But France ignored their own decision and demanded another resolution, one they wouldn't pass. The UN might work if all of the UN was then responsible for the execution of their own orders. Otherwise, what is it?

Anyway, I hope my following statement is one of solidarity:
I love my country, but unfortunately sometimes I know I take the liberties and freedoms I have for granted. I wish our troops good luck, and I sincerely wish, from the bottom of my heart, that the Iraqi people appreciate just some of the freedoms I enjoy everyday more than some of us do. What is life without self-respect? The survival of democracy is bigger than ourselves, and bigger than any one nation. You should feel humbled by it, and appreciate it for what it is.

[ReaperFett]

It's unfortunate that France, one of the most closed and secretive European nations in the history of the world, is automatically given more moral weight than the United States and England, arguably the two most benevolent major powers in the history of the world. Must people hate us for our power? That's not reason, that's spite.
No, France, Russia and China were given more weight. 3-2.


Must people hate us for our power? That's not reason, that's spite.
No, its generally attitude, trust me.

[FireKat]

So two thug nations of arms dealers and one thug nation of human rights abusers has the moral authority? No.

[Hart]

let me see. Who gets most of their oil from Iraq? France, Russia and China. It's hardly coincidence.

All three of them passed resolution 1440, which allowed for extreme measures against Iraq if the conditions weren't met. But, alas, they couldn't keep up their end of the bargain. That's why the UN needs reform. You can't say "oh wait, I think I change my mind. Let's have another vote" whenever you want to. It's proof that the UN is all rhetoric.

[ReaperFett]

One instance and suddenly you think the UN should be reformed. Im sure you'll add the "agree with us or be removed" rule early, right? :rolleyes




So two thug nations of arms dealers and one thug nation of human rights abusers has the moral authority?
Rumseld used to deal with a murderous dictator, the death penalty is a breach of human rights.

[FireKat]

As did everyone in the past. Past aside, France and Russia continue to do so.

As for the death penalty, breach of human rights? By whose standards?

[ReaperFett]

China are human rights abusers on whos standards?

[FireKat]

Everyone except China and Fundamentalist states, apparently. Your dig on the death penalty is of absolutely no consequence.

[ReaperFett]

Sure it is. To some, you're both damaging it. You could also call the US a warmongering country that ignores the rest of the world consistantly. Is it true? Depends. But hey, its as solid as what you say.

[FireKat]

You honestly would argue that the sky wasn't blue :rolleyes.

[ReaperFett]

The majority of the world is against you (Technically us) on this one. Hate to break it to you, but youre the contrary one this time.

[FireKat]

The vast majority of England was against a war with Germany in 1939...so I don't exactly equate being right to being "in the majority". That isn't being contrary, that's sticking to your guns.

[ReaperFett]

Yeah, viva la dictatorship eh? :)

[FireKat]

The UN is not a democracy, and never claimed to be. I'd rather not have our national security determined by a consensus of foreign nations.

[ReaperFett]

I meant the UK, not the UN. Similar structure to how Iraq works. Bush makes an order, General Blair tells everyone, but will listen to everyones views before ignoring them :)

[Hart]

In regards to the death penalty:
the majority of the world thinks its inhumane? China, Vietnam and India practically make up more than half of the world's population themselves, and both exercise capital punishment. And the bulk of Africa certainly don't have problems with it.

The sense I'm getting from Anti-war protestors is that Iraq is another Vietnam. It isn't. Iraq is much more analogous to Nazi Germany. Was it immoral to stop the Holocaust? Not in my person opinion. Saddam Hussein is himself responsible for more Muslim deaths than any other person alive today. Many of his methods of oppression, including paid government-utilized gangbang rapists on women and young girls as a method of torture cannot be defended! His use of weapons of mass destruction against his own countrymen is not acceptable? Where, pray tell, is France, Russia, and China's moral weight? It's a war to remove the threat of one of the most dangerous war criminals alive, both against the world and his own people. It's not a war that can be argued against with morality or ethics. For France, Russia, and China, it's POLITICS.

I admit, the US probably wouldn't be at war if our economy wasn't in a recession. I admit that. But we're not taking the war to just any random nation. It's a nation has repeatedly defied UN resolutions. Not even France can argue that point. Iraq has been in violation ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam deserves to be removed. Instead, France, Russia, and China fatten is money chest by buying his oil, a money chest used to pay those above-mentioned rapists and executioners. It's BLOOD money. Plain and simply.

[ReaperFett]

In regards to the death penalty:
the majority of the world thinks its inhumane? China, Vietnam and India practically make up more than half of the world's population themselves, and both exercise capital punishment. And the bulk of Africa certainly don't have problems with it.
And the people have much of a say? One minute they have a bad human rights record, the next youre using CHina as an example of people not minding :)




I admit, the US probably wouldn't be at war if our economy wasn't in a recession. I admit that. But we're not taking the war to just any random nation. It's a nation has repeatedly defied UN resolutions. Not even France can argue that point. Iraq has been in violation ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam deserves to be removed. Instead, France, Russia, and China fatten is money chest by buying his oil, a money chest used to pay those above-mentioned rapists and executioners.
Or MAYBE, just maybe, that the weapons inspectors were still there, and it is dumb to stop something midway through?

[Beldarine]

Oh come ON, Fett. The inspectors had 12 years. Do you realize the cease fire that Saddam signed himself in 1991 stated that if he did not disarm in 15 DAYS military action would resume against him? Days, Fett. Not years.. Not months.. Not centuries. In my opinion, this war should have been finished in 1991.

I have never liked the U.N., let me state that. In the Kosovo crisis they put up the same amount of resistance, unless Daddy Sam led them into war. When we finally did, tens of thousands of Serbs had died.

France and Russia, especially, have HUGE economic stakes in Iraq. Iraq owes Russia a $5 billion debt -- and Russia is afraid if Saddam is ousted, they won't get paid back. That's a lot of money for a country that is struggling with newfound capitalism. And France.. You know those oil fields that are burning? Do you know whose equipment they are? France. They have billions of dollars of oil field equipment there, yes the work is done by Iraqis, but the equipment is Frances. Why do you think they are so against this war? Whenever they see the oil fields burning they hear money being flushed down the toilet.

And the world is against us? Really? That's not what I hear. I hear 45 countries are supporting us in this war. So France, Germany, Russia and China are not supporting us (and did you really think the Arab league would.. I mean.. come on, are you naive?), who give a rat's #($?

Moving on. Death Penalty. I'm sorry. But the old testament says an eye for an eye. If someone killed my husband, I'd beg the judge to let me pull the switch. Oh god.. I would kill the SOB myself. Why don't you put yourself in that situation. Your wife, or daughter, is savagely raped then brutally murdered. In Britain they'd get life in a cushy jail. You know, three square meals a day.. Cable TV.. a workout room.. Conjugal visits.. Pretty nice living. In the U.S. they'd get fried.

Which one would YOU prefer? Me? I'd prefer mine fried, thank you very much.

And China.. Are you, again, so naive to believe they do not have human rights violations? Just in 2001 Bush was pressing the Chinese government to pass some kind of human rights policy. They arrest people they suspect are harboring negative feelings for the state, and throw them in prison for life.. With no proof. They have shut down thousands of Internet Cafes, restricting the flow of information to their people because it subverts the masses. China does not have a legal and court system that operates outside of state controls. Since everything in China is state controlled, the workers have no way to air their dissatisfaction over wages or working conditions. They arrest and throw in jail pro-democracy activists due to their "rule of law." From 1998 there has been an erosion of human rights conditions, their reasoning is maintaining social stability. There has been a tightening of free expression, and a crackdown on dissidents (including Tibetan Buddhists). They have purged academics from their schools, claiming they harbored views against the state. They have banned opposing political parties. Since then they have hunted down everyone in the peaceful "China Democracy Party," arrested, prosecuted them in closed door trials, and sent them to prison.

They arrest and prosecute anyone who calls for human rights reform. How is that NOT a violation of human rights? And let's not forget Tiananmen Square, it can happen again. The Chinese government is proving it with their current actions.

[ReaperFett]

Oh come ON, Fett. The inspectors had 12 years.
12 years, and no evidence. Id rather pretend they went in recently.


And the world is against us? Really? That's not what I hear. I hear 45 countries are supporting us in this war.
Name them. I heard that to, but I hardly see proof.

One I DO know is officially in the 45 is Germany. Chemical weapons team or something. But they got onto the list of "supporters".


Moving on. Death Penalty. I'm sorry. But the old testament says an eye for an eye. If someone killed my husband, I'd beg the judge to let me pull the switch. Oh god.. I would kill the SOB myself. Why don't you put yourself in that situation. Your wife, or daughter, is savagely raped then brutally murdered. In Britain they'd get life in a cushy jail. You know, three square meals a day.. Cable TV.. a workout room.. Conjugal visits.. Pretty nice living. In the U.S. they'd get fried.

Which one would YOU prefer? Me? I'd prefer mine fried, thank you very much.
And two years later, evidence comes out that they didnt do it. Well time for a re-tri....oops. Sorry family of innocent guy, we just killed him.




BTW, this one for Sanis

Hollywood hunk Brad Pitt has gone against the grain of a large number of his counterparts in the celebrity world - by declaring his support for American President George W. Bush. The Spy Game star says that he's willing to let the controversial premier finish what he's started with the war against Iraq. He notes, "We can't go back now. We're in this together as Americans. We're going to have to go in and get the job done as soon as possible." But Pitt, who remains skeptical about the reported connection between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and terrorist network Al-Qaida, adds, "Why attack now?" All the same, Pitt says he respects Bush for "pushing the issue, so people were forced to take a stand."
This means you now dislike Pitt for voicing his views, right? :)

[Beldarine]

Actually, Fett. The way the American system is with appeals and the like.. The average wait on death row is 12 - 15 years. If we didn't have so many appeals in the way, then things would go so much faster.

So they get 12 - 15 years with a cushy life and the ability to "find God".. then they get fried. Suits me :)

[ReaperFett]

Murderer of a Murderer is still a Murderer :)



Anyway, feel free to reply, but I'll drop back now. Heck, I only posted here in the first place due to me getting sick of Xenophobics :)

[Hart]

I've never called China a human rights abuser. Whether I think they are is not the point I'm trying to make.

Your disgust of the death penalty in the US is inconsequential. The US is a democracy, and our methods were voted into office. And the Western European nations, also democracies, must respect that. It is a GROSS unfairness to compare civilizations in democracies that are under different circumstances. Dictatorships, like Iraq, on the other hand, are free to external criticisms, because leadership has most likely been taken by force, not by free will of the people. The Death Penalty is NOT the discussion by any means. Setting European popular values on the population of the United States is ridiculous. Democracies must respect the decisions of domestic policies in other democracies or else democracy itself is a sham.

Now getting back to Saddam. I'm just going to argue that ANY resolution that simply solidifies Saddam's power in Iraq is inhumane. ANY resolution that allows him to profit from the oil of his people is wrong. I can understand the arugment that innocent lives will be lost. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. I truly believe that the lives of 100 or so soldiers is acceptable in spreading democracy and self-respect to an ENTIRE PEOPLES and all their future generations. How can you give liberty a pricetag?
France isn't in the moral right in this subject, they're just being cowardly self-involved. THEY propose resolutions to continue the oppression of the Iraqi people. Of course, the US has agreed to similar propositions in the past to combat communism, but were we right? Not always. And that's just how in this particular case, I feel France is being EXTREMELY backwards and selfish.

Russia and China disagree for different reasons, and those I can understand. Their arguments are not based completely on virtues and ethics like France's. France on the other hand, is merely a disgrace of a world leader. To call them a world power is a absolute sham.


Or MAYBE, just maybe, that the weapons inspectors were still there, and it is dumb to stop something midway through?

And I'll leave with this: Han Blix himself said in the UN that the inspections were unlikely to work. Out of his own mouth. Why France disagrees dispite NOT BEING the head inspector is beyond me.