French Diplomats go on strike

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
link

I guess they're following the french military, which has been on strike for over 150 years now.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
French bashing is so 9 months ago.
french bashing never goes out of style, my friend. The french are the french of today.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
61
91
A friend of mine was testing AIM express today and so he put down, "what is the capital of France?" (apparently the old one wouldn't transmit stuff in quotes.

The logical response was "surrenderville," and "runawayburg." :D

Nothing is more fun than bringing up WWII.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Wha exactly is the problem with france? They are a very democratic country with decent industry... my time there in the south..in montpelier..was great. Good food, good service (not these bad french waiter rumors), and very nice people. Guess if you got green though everyones nice. (ie tourists).. Germany OTOH was rude, cold, distant people with crap for resturants.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
61
91
When irate people who are just being argumentative and violent are talked to rationally, they get even more incensed. We wanted somebody to bomb cause we were still hurting from 9/11. France said "hey, saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Which was the rational, evenheaded response. Our irate and incensed response was "How dare you defend a madman, you must be soft on terror!" And we bombed and invaded anyway. It's like trying to talk somebody out of a bar fight, a lost cause.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: preslove
When irate people who are just being argumentative and violent are talked to rationally, they get even more incensed. We wanted somebody to bomb cause we were still hurting from 9/11. France said "hey, saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Which was the rational, evenheaded response. Our irate and incensed response was "How dare you defend a madman, you must be soft on terror!" And we bombed and invaded anyway. It's like trying to talk somebody out of a bar fight, a lost cause.
yeah, and 12 years of dodging and breaking 16 UN resolutions had nothing to do with it, right? The mind of a simpleton is quite hollow.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: preslove
When irate people who are just being argumentative and violent are talked to rationally, they get even more incensed. We wanted somebody to bomb cause we were still hurting from 9/11. France said "hey, saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Which was the rational, evenheaded response. Our irate and incensed response was "How dare you defend a madman, you must be soft on terror!" And we bombed and invaded anyway. It's like trying to talk somebody out of a bar fight, a lost cause.
yeah, and 12 years of dodging and breaking 16 UN resolutions had nothing to do with it, right? The mind of a simpleton is quite hollow.
Can you hear the echo?
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,755
61
91
That's a really well reasoned little response you got there
. If the war was really about UN resolutions why did the US not wait for another resolution to back the use of force? The problem is that the rest of the world knew that Saddam was not a viable threat and had no capacity whatsoever to inflict a major attack on us in the half hour or whatever that Blair so adamantly maintained. They said, "hey, we think you are overstating the threat of an extremely poor country with no apparent offensive capabilities. LET'S GIVE THE INSPECTORS MORE TIME." But hey we found the WMD, right? We were right all along, right?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: preslove
That's a really well reasoned little response you got there
. If the war was really about UN resolutions why did the US not wait for another resolution to back the use of force? The problem is that the rest of the world knew that Saddam was not a viable threat and had no capacity whatsoever to inflict a major attack on us in the half hour or whatever that Blair so adamantly maintained. They said, "hey, we think you are overstating the threat of an extremely poor country with no apparent offensive capabilities. LET'S GIVE THE INSPECTORS MORE TIME." But hey we found the WMD, right? We were right all along, right?
More time? I guess twelve years wasn't enough, right? As for WMDs, there or not, Hussein sure isn't. Giving terror a redoubt, money, and political support is just another side of the same coin, IMHO. Iraq's neighbors see we mean business. Iran should take special heed because a massive assault is just one way of bringing down a terror-sponsoring country.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Certain forms of French-bashing just make me exasperated (now if you'd gone straight for the 'typical french -spend more days on strike than they do working!' line, I'd have been ok. Cos thats true ;) )

Its so indicative of pettyness, and intellectual stupor. Does anyone read history anymore? The French military has been on strike for 150 years? Now I realise that you just pulled this number for exaggeration purposes, but.... tch!

The french lost two wars. get over it.
1) Indochine. Well, we all know that losing a war in Vietnam is easy to do.
2) WW2. They got rolled over and surrendered. Man, thats a blow to the national pride, but if you just read the comments today you'd think that they were the worst army in the world back then, and surrendered before the germans had even got out of bed the first morning.
People overlook the fact that Germany at the time had the finest land fighting organisation in the world, with a new strategy that was nothing less than a RMA - far better that that of Britain or France, and certainly far better than the USA. People overlook the fact that Britain would certainly have been defeated too, if it hadn't been for the English Channel. If the US hadn't had the atlantic between them and mainland europe, there's a good chance that they'd have surrendered too. (I know, I know, things would have been different, but still)
Bear in mind, that when the US first came to fight the Germans, in North africa , they still got their asses handed to them on a plate (to use a colourful american impression.) -- even after a couple of years to study the germans and practise. The Germans were simply damn good at what they were doing, and the rest of the world had to struggle to catch up.
We today are just lucky that we for the existance of the english channel and the atlantic ocean, thats all.

And before anyone asks - I'm not french. But I have lived in both France and America, so I think I'm pretty unbiased here.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
dpm

I'm sure one of the posterboys will find some 16th century battle the French lost.

I demand a mandatory cooling of period when it comes to wars
60 year seems reasonable to me - you have 60 years of bragging rights and then it's over - no more credits

so the USA can brag for another 2 years about WWII and their glorious victory and then they just have to stfu :)

if not, we are going to have these same threads in 40 years when I'm posting on Internet v8.1 on my 250gbit fiberchannel internet connection directly connected into my spine

the 16 years old in this thread are bragging about WWII like they personally stormed the Normandy beaches


 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: preslove
When irate people who are just being argumentative and violent are talked to rationally, they get even more incensed. We wanted somebody to bomb cause we were still hurting from 9/11. France said "hey, saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Which was the rational, evenheaded response. Our irate and incensed response was "How dare you defend a madman, you must be soft on terror!" And we bombed and invaded anyway. It's like trying to talk somebody out of a bar fight, a lost cause.
yeah, and 12 years of dodging and breaking 16 UN resolutions had nothing to do with it, right? The mind of a simpleton is quite hollow.

The resolutions, IMO, had absolutely nothing to do with why we went to war. There is a world of difference between going to war because of resolutions and going to war using resolutions as a reason.

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: dpm
Certain forms of French-bashing just make me exasperated (now if you'd gone straight for the 'typical french -spend more days on strike than they do working!' line, I'd have been ok. Cos thats true ;) )

Its so indicative of pettyness, and intellectual stupor. Does anyone read history anymore? The French military has been on strike for 150 years? Now I realise that you just pulled this number for exaggeration purposes, but.... tch!

The french lost two wars. get over it.
1) Indochine. Well, we all know that losing a war in Vietnam is easy to do.
2) WW2. They got rolled over and surrendered. Man, thats a blow to the national pride, but if you just read the comments today you'd think that they were the worst army in the world back then, and surrendered before the germans had even got out of bed the first morning.
People overlook the fact that Germany at the time had the finest land fighting organisation in the world, with a new strategy that was nothing less than a RMA - far better that that of Britain or France, and certainly far better than the USA. People overlook the fact that Britain would certainly have been defeated too, if it hadn't been for the English Channel. If the US hadn't had the atlantic between them and mainland europe, there's a good chance that they'd have surrendered too. (I know, I know, things would have been different, but still)
Bear in mind, that when the US first came to fight the Germans, in North africa , they still got their asses handed to them on a plate (to use a colourful american impression.) -- even after a couple of years to study the germans and practise. The Germans were simply damn good at what they were doing, and the rest of the world had to struggle to catch up.
We today are just lucky that we for the existance of the english channel and the atlantic ocean, thats all.

And before anyone asks - I'm not french. But I have lived in both France and America, so I think I'm pretty unbiased here.
Of course, a responsible US President (in a hypothetical non-Atlantic Ocean/Western Europe world), seeing the likely possibility for a mega threat like that would have invaded Germany and deposed Hitler before anything really bad had a chance to happen. And France would have bitched the whole time. Ironic, eh?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: preslove
When irate people who are just being argumentative and violent are talked to rationally, they get even more incensed. We wanted somebody to bomb cause we were still hurting from 9/11. France said "hey, saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." Which was the rational, evenheaded response. Our irate and incensed response was "How dare you defend a madman, you must be soft on terror!" And we bombed and invaded anyway. It's like trying to talk somebody out of a bar fight, a lost cause.
yeah, and 12 years of dodging and breaking 16 UN resolutions had nothing to do with it, right? The mind of a simpleton is quite hollow.

The resolutions, IMO, had absolutely nothing to do with why we went to war. There is a world of difference between going to war because of resolutions and going to war using resolutions as a reason.
Do you even undersstand what an Article VII resolution is?
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
I'm sure Dari will explain everything to us because his holy mentor explained it to him

please enlighten us
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
they still got their asses handed to them on a plate (to use a colourful american impression.)
It's "on a platter".. and colorful expression:)
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY