Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:36:17 PM EDT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

France 'would use nuclear arms'

French President Jacques Chirac
Chirac warned of new threats in a post-Cold War world
French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.

Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."

He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an event.

France has had an independent nuclear deterrent since 1960, after an arms programme ordered by Charles de Gaulle.

'Odious attacks'

The BBC's Alistair Sandford in Paris says this is the first time that Mr Chirac has so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

On a visit to L'Ile-Longue base in Brittany, Mr Chirac said leaders of states who would "use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and adapted response from us".

The president spoke of new threats in a post-Cold War world, without mentioning any specific threat against France.

"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilisations," he said, adding that "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states".

Following the end of the Cold War, France scaled down its nuclear deterrent, scrapping a number of missile systems.

It is believed to have a current arsenal of around 350 nuclear weapons.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:37:40 PM EDT
Yeah, next he will say it's his strong threats that have deterred serious terrorist attacks against France.

Couldn't be that they are in bed with those ROP fucks...
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:44:04 PM EDT
Given the riots they just had, maybe they should nuke parts of their own country.

If it gets real nasty...do you think we'll go in and save their sorry asses again?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:45:25 PM EDT
How uncivilized of them.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:50:22 PM EDT
[stinky hippie] But you can't hug your children with nuclear arms! France is a peaceful socialist country! Violence never solves anything![/stinky hippie]


Nuke and Pave.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:51:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LeonardC:
Given the riots they just had, maybe they should nuke parts of their own country.

If it gets real nasty...do you think we'll go in and save their sorry asses again?



We would because we can. And should.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:56:35 PM EDT
ultimatums are awesome to exploit. All you have to do is set up a terrorist attack on France from whatever country you want to get rid of. France responds with a nuc. Bada bing, nuclear war on their tab.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 8:00:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 8:00:50 PM EDT by AKJonny]
*sigh* all the relationship threads are getting to me. I could have sworn when I clicked the post it read "Fiance would use nuclear arms".

I need some sleep.

/end hijack
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:18:47 PM EDT
Damn...

Who died and left Chirac a set of nuts?

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:20:32 PM EDT
But he'd put all those white flag makers out of business...
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:27:18 PM EDT
Don't worry. He would hug his enemies with those nuclear arms and it will be all better.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:30:05 PM EDT
Suuuuuuure they would.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:42:32 PM EDT
For sale:
One French developed 150 Kiloton nuclear device.
Never used. Dropped once.
4 Million Euros
OBO
Nights only.
Merci.

Le Nuke en vente! Bon marché!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:48:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:48:24 PM EDT
Talking like that I am surprised he did not use Nuclear weapons when they had the nights of riots in France.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:53:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LeonardC:
Given the riots they just had, maybe they should nuke parts of their own country.

If it gets real nasty...do you think we'll go in and save their sorry asses again?


Silly bastard, don't you know they liberated *themselves* in WWII?!?

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:54:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Daytona955i:
But he'd put all those white flag makers out of business...


What about mini/micro tac nukes hidden within the pole of a surrender flag?

Wouldn't that be deliciously ironic?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:37:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:40:13 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:52:48 AM EDT
I've got to say, I never really liked Charles de Gaul, but I do respect him. He was firmly in favour of an independant France, left NATO and developed nukes to maintain that independance. If de Gaul had been running the show in 1935, he would have been the one invading Germany for getting upity.

Chriac is nothing but a spineless, politically oppitunisty pretender. For all we know, he was talking about the U.S. or Britain.

De Gaul's country is not worthy of his memory.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 3:48:44 AM EDT
Chirac also said he has expanded the definition of "vital interests" -- which fall under the protection of the nuclear weapons program -- to include "strategic supplies" such as oil reserves and the "defense of allies."



nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.html
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 3:53:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 3:57:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:01:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113: Actually, the Phrench almost certainly would 'go nuclear' long before either the US or UK felt the need to cross that threshold. Phrance has now gotten an 'attitude' after it's defeat in 1940 and does not intend to ever let that happen again. Their Nuclear Arsenal is very large, far larger than Britains, and their policy of use does not rule out 'First Use'....in fact Phrench Policy is that Nuclear weapons should not be used as a incremental threat. If Phrances vital interests were threatened and they went nuclear their policy is overwhelming force, not 'escalation'. I'd bet good money that if 9/11 had happened in Paris, Afghanistan would have lots of glowing glass holes now. ANdy
France acted unilaterally by sending troops to Africa to protect their interests in cocoa production. So if they do that to protect their chocolate industry, then I can believe they'll nuke 'em because terrrorists don't buy from French weapons companies. Countries and 'gubments are the customers and terrorists interfere with business. How is Frenchie supposed to make an easy profit selling Exocet missiles and Mirage spares when the UN is slapping restrictions back and forth because some koran-reading peckerhead blew up a school?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:03:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Actually, the Phrench almost certainly would 'go nuclear' long before either the US or UK felt the need to cross that threshold. Phrance has now gotten an 'attitude' after it's defeat in 1940 and does not intend to ever let that happen again.

Their Nuclear Arsenal is very large, far larger than Britains, and their policy of use does not rule out 'First Use'....in fact Phrench Policy is that Nuclear weapons should not be used as a incremental threat. If Phrances vital interests were threatened and they went nuclear their policy is overwhelming force, not 'escalation'.



There's no such thing as "nuclear escalation" between two nuclear powers. Once the first nuke flies, all the rest will be in the air shortly afterwards in a "use it or lose it" shooting frenzy, and nuclear missiles don't have self-destructs built in. Once you launch one, it WILL do it's "bucket of instant sunshine" trick over someone's front yard.


I'd bet good money that if 9/11 had happened in Paris, Afghanistan would have lots of glowing glass holes now.

ANdy



I'm inclined to agree.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:07:01 AM EDT
So instead of human muscle powered arms waiving white flags of surrender, they are skipping over the bionic option and going to nuclear powered arms to waive?

Makes sense. Nuclear powered arms would never get tired, need a break, complain that the flag weigh too much, need wine or cheese etc....

Smart move.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:08:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 4:10:51 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:14:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:26:43 AM EDT



damn. it looks like france just sprouted it's first pube.


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:29:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

I meant that the French policy on an attack on France with WMD is not to use a 'proportionate response'... if you are a 'Rogue State' and you hit one French city with your one and only bomb or missile with a Chemical Warhead, the French policy is they do not respond by taking out one of yours, they will blow your country away.

ANdy



I understand what you were saying. I was going off on a bit of a tangent on the French policy of going nuclear early in an all out war. In some people's minds, in a war between two nuclear powers there is likely to be a gradual use of nukes, a few small tactical devices and it slowly grows as each side "ups the ante" ("they used one small nuke on us, we'll use two on them"). The results of repeated simulations at senior political command levels indicate that it doesn't happen like that at all. The actual results are normally "they've started using nukes! Glass their whole country before they get a chance to kill our nukes on the ground!!!". With technology at it's current level, the high level decisions only have a few minutes, there's no time to have some conference to decide what to do. As the pros in strategic analysis tend to say "once one flys, they'll all fly".
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:30:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:32:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 4:36:37 AM EDT by JohnParis]

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

fuck france. a completely irrelevant country since napoleon.



Hello Beer Slayer!

With moderators like you we don’t need trolls!

More seriously, happy to see you again in a democratic debate!


Hello Andy, hello Dewoitine!

How can you always be here before me?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:38:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 4:38:35 AM EDT

French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.



So that's why the French government ain't calling all those burning cars, terrorism. Hell, they'd be compelled to nuke themselves!
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:58:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
frances idea of using "nuke devices" is loading everyone up on nuclear powered transports and leaving the area before the germans get there again.

funny how france has no problem usuing them for their defense but OH NO that evil USA <that's defending us as well> sure as hell can't.

fuck france. a completely irrelevant country since napoleon.


Fuckin' A +1.

My mom and grandpa are Cajun (making me half), and they're such big fucking French apologists it makes me sick. I seriously thought my grandpa was going to try to throw down with me at a family reunion once because I made a similar comment ("....haven't done shit since Napoleon").

Now Andy, you probably already know, the Cajuns aren't historically the biggest fans of the British, and my family pretty much falls in line with that. For me, the thing about le Grand Dérangement that pisses me off the most at the Brits is that they welched on what was essentially a contract (Acadiens and Brits already had an agreement, then the Crown came in and tried to make them "re-up" their committment with add'l stipulations).

For me, a large portion of my anger has also been directed at the Crown.......... the French Crown. Thanks for the fucking abandonment, assholes. That said, there was an interesting History Channel doc that I watched several years ago which mentioned an antiquarian book trader who had come across some documents (manuscripts from the Court of Louis XV).

These documents, if verified, suggest that the French Crown, while not wanting to cede Canada, also wouldn't have been particularly heartbroken if the Brits "handled" his little problem with the colonies (similar to the problems the Brit Crown had with their colonists prior to 1776 ). I haven't ever seen/heard anything else about them, and haven't been able to find much of anything when I've looked, but it's an interesting perspective that would certainly explain some things.

John, I honestly don't have much of a problem with most line Parisiennes, and even less of a problem with most Frenchmen. I've got friends from several regions of France, and French was actually my minor when I first went to college (had 3yrs in high school, as well as the Cajun [what you would probably call "Corrupted" or "Bastardized French"] I picked up from my grandparents).

The litmus test is usually this:
a) Did you believe that the French liberated themselves?
b) What %age of the French population do you believe were members of the Resistance?

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:38:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 10:56:17 AM EDT by JohnParis]

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

The litmus test is usually this:
a) Did you believe that the French liberated themselves?
b) What %age of the French population do you believe were members of the Resistance?




a) NO! but the Free French forces took an active part in combat:

During the Italian campaign of 1943, 100,000 Free French soldiers fought on the Allied side. By the time of the Normandy Invasion, the Free French forces numbered more than 400,000 people.

By September 1944 the Free French forces stood at 560,000, which rose to 1 million by the end of 1944, and were fighting in Alsace, the Alps and Brittany. By the end of the war in Europe (May 1945), the Free French forces comprised 1,250,000, including 7 infantry and 3 armoured divisions fighting in Germany.

At this time, there were 5 million US, British and Canadian soldiers in Europe. And we must remember their sacrifice, and never forget.



About 200 000 French soldiers have been killed during the war, plus 400 000 civilians.


b) Few. May be 0.5 % (200 000 on 40 000 000), but it’s very hard to say, and a very controversial subject, even now. but Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:00:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:07:31 AM EDT by motown_steve]


"Ah have de newclear wepunz et ah am prepared to be using dem, non?"
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:13:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GarethB:
There's no such thing as "nuclear escalation" between two nuclear powers.


Of course there is. It was my understanding that cold war US nuclear docturine dictated a staged deployment of strategic weapons. The first strike (or retaliation) would be a counter-force strike using low-CEP ICBMs and deep penetration aircraft; the second wave would be a larger strike employing all strategic aircraft and missiles against military, manufacturing, and C3I targets; and the final wave would deploy SLBMs against economic centers (read: cities) and surviving aircraft could take the "grand tour," attacking targets of opportunity. Each of these "phases" would employ a lull (if possible) to allow for negotiation.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:31:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:32:05 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:35:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SkiShooter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

France 'would use nuclear arms'

French President Jacques Chirac
Chirac warned of new threats in a post-Cold War world
French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.

Speaking at a nuclear submarine base in north-western France, Mr Chirac said a French response "could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."

He said France's nuclear forces had been configured for such an event.

France has had an independent nuclear deterrent since 1960, after an arms programme ordered by Charles de Gaulle.

'Odious attacks'

The BBC's Alistair Sandford in Paris says this is the first time that Mr Chirac has so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

On a visit to L'Ile-Longue base in Brittany, Mr Chirac said leaders of states who would "use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and adapted response from us".

The president spoke of new threats in a post-Cold War world, without mentioning any specific threat against France.

"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilisations," he said, adding that "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states".

Following the end of the Cold War, France scaled down its nuclear deterrent, scrapping a number of missile systems.

It is believed to have a current arsenal of around 350 nuclear weapons.





Yea, right!! They have nearly let the tangos take over thier country from the inside. After some exhaustive debate over whether to use them, the French will surrender just so they won't piss off thier locals.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:38:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
What you guys must remember when discussing the POST WAR French Government is they ABSOLUTELY do not fuck about when they think their national interest is threatened.

You guys all rage verbally at Greenpeace.... but the French blew their fucking ship up! Do not fuck with DGSE!

www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rainbow_warrior_sunk.jpg
Grenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior after the French paid a visit

sinking of Rainbow Warrior...


I agree here.

The difference many are not seeing is this last post.

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

But Andy and the french aren't talking about helping US, they are talking about helping THEMSELVES.

I do not doubt their resolve on this issue.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:45:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:45:28 AM EDT by JohnParis]

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

But Andy and the french aren't talking about helping US, they are talking about helping THEMSELVES.

I do not doubt their resolve on this issue.



- A total of 1,800 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan, including the French Navy’s contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom.

- 900 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force. France is also playing a significant role in training the Afghan national army, alongside the U.S. and the United Kingdom, having initially organized three Afghan battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers. Additionally, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Taliban regime in southern Afghanistan.

- In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, France offered its military resources and capabilities to support the American-led military campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. Immediately, the exchanges of information between our naval commanders increased, particularly in the Indian Ocean, thus intensifying the fight against all types of trafficking.

- Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002 by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. Indeed, France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban regime in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

- French forces arrived early on the ground in Afghanistan. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of U.S. engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region.

- The French Navy continues to patrol the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Oman. It has been monitoring commercial sea lanes, detecting and boarding suspicious vessels, as well as escorting coalition boats through the area since December 2001. France is the second largest contributor to the maritime task force in charge of this mission.

Andy please tell Mister CITADELGRAD87 that there are British troops in Iraq. He must be the only one in this world who doesn’t know.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:47:38 AM EDT
Whatever.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:57:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 11:58:04 AM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]

Originally Posted By JohnParis:

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

But Andy and the french aren't talking about helping US, they are talking about helping THEMSELVES.

I do not doubt their resolve on this issue.



- A total of 1,800 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan, including the French Navy’s contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom.

- 900 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force. France is also playing a significant role in training the Afghan national army, alongside the U.S. and the United Kingdom, having initially organized three Afghan battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers. Additionally, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Taliban regime in southern Afghanistan.

- In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, France offered its military resources and capabilities to support the American-led military campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. Immediately, the exchanges of information between our naval commanders increased, particularly in the Indian Ocean, thus intensifying the fight against all types of trafficking.

- Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002 by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. Indeed, France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban regime in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

- French forces arrived early on the ground in Afghanistan. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of U.S. engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region.

- The French Navy continues to patrol the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Oman. It has been monitoring commercial sea lanes, detecting and boarding suspicious vessels, as well as escorting coalition boats through the area since December 2001. France is the second largest contributor to the maritime task force in charge of this mission.

Andy please tell Mister CITADELGRAD87 that there are British troops in Iraq. He must be the only one in this world who doesn’t know.



Hi John. What part of the red highlighted portion did you not comprehend?

As to the blue part, "US," an emphatic "us", hence the capitalization, not U.S.

"US" like Andy and I, not U.S., I don't know how to be more clear.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:01:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:03:33 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:05:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lert:
I've got to say, I never really liked Charles de Gaul, but I do respect him. He was firmly in favour of an independant France, left NATO and developed nukes to maintain that independance. If de Gaul had been running the show in 1935, he would have been the one invading Germany for getting upity.

Chriac is nothing but a spineless, politically oppitunisty pretender. For all we know, he was talking about the U.S. or Britain.

De Gaul's country is not worthy of his memory.



Agreed.
I may not have liked how he set himself apart from the US, but I can certainly respect that.
It's what I would do in his position.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:19:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:27:56 PM EDT by colklink]
Sorry,gotta call bullshit on this.Not only wouldnt the frenchies use nukes,I wouldnt be supprised if OBL got his hands on a french nuke.That would be the only way a frenchie nuke would be used in anger.They could have had the combined nuclear arsenals of the US and the USSR in 1940 and the nazis would have still marched into paris with no effort.Sorry Andy,just cause those cowards sunk an unarmed greenpeace boat that doesnt equal military prowess.

The Complete Military History of France
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Norse Invasions: Lost. King Charles the Simple buys peace with the Norsemen by giving them Normandy.

Moorish Invasions: Lost. Charlemagne scoots behind the Pyrennes.

Third Crusade: Philip Augustus gets mad at Richard the Lion Heart and goes home.

Seventh Crusade: Lost. St. Louis' crusade to Eqypt resoundingly crushed.

Eighth Crusade: Lost. St. Louis goes to Tunis.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates the


First Rule of French Warfare:
France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her
War of Devolution: Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

St. Bartholomew Day Massacre: Won, because the opponent was also French.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as de Gaulle Syndrome, and leads to the


Second Rule of French Warfare:
France only wins when America does most of the fighting.
This was part of a much larger worldwide war against the British, which the French lost since the Americans weren't participants.
French Revolution: Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French. France introduces the world to the guillotine and the Terror.

Quasi-War: Tied. France, angry that the US normalized relations with the British, seizes US ships in the Caribbean and decrees war on American shipping worldwide. France conveniently ignores that the US and France have a treaty of alliance that effectively makes the US a subject state of France. American envoys in Paris are told that they must pay a $250,000 bribe to the French Foreign Minister and a $10,000,000 "loan" to France before the French will even consider negotiations (XYZ Affair). US refuses to pay, builds up a navy which promptly seizes 80 French ships, and continues to sue for peace. Delighted British offer aid to the US against the French. Ends when Napoleon seizes power in Paris and abandons North America. Napoleon also agrees to abrogate the unequal treaty of alliance, making the US truly independent for the first time. Produces the


First Rule of American Diplomacy:
You'll regret making any alliance with the French.
The US makes no other treaties of alliance for nearly 150 years.
Haitian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a European army by African slaves, and produces the
First Rule of African Warfare:
We can always beat the French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

India: Lost, to the British.

Mexican Empire War: Lost. Napoleon III takes advantage of US Civil War to invade Mexico. Collapse of the Confederacy dashes plans to invade Louisiana. Saber-rattling by reunified US leads to hasty French withdrawal, leaving puppet Austrian "Emperor of Mexico" to face a Mexican firing squad.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

Panama Jungles: Lost this time to vegetation and mosquitoes.

World War I: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II (first act): Lost to the Germans. Conquered French liberated, against their will, by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

World War II (second act): Lost to the Italians. True, the Germans already had France on the ropes, but nevertheless France is the first and only country to ever lose three wars when fighting Italians!

World War II (third act): Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French: its Jewish population. Vichy government consistently gives Germans more than the Germans ask when it comes to anti-Semitic policies.

World War II (fourth act): Won, due to the fact that the opponent was a French woman. In what is perhaps the vilest act ever committed by any French government, the Vichy government guillotines Marie Latour for the "crime" of abortion.

World War II (fifth act): Lost, this time to the Americans in North Africa. Ostensibly independent collaborationist Vichy government immediately occupied by Hitler, putting to an end the myth of "unoccupied France." Vichy remains popular with the French people until it became clear that Germany was losing the war.

World War II (sixth act): Reminiscent of the American Revolution, France claims a win even though the British and Americans did all the work (remember the Second Rule!) of liberating France, and the British, Americans, and especially the Russians did all the work of defeating Germany. France demands (and, amazingly, gets) a spot as one of the victorious Allies; and even more amazingly gets a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

War of Indochina Independence: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu. The US, forgetting the First Rule of American Diplomacy, steps into the mess and spends the next 20 years getting out.

War of Algerian Independence: Lost after 8 brutal years of fighting. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the


First Rule of Muslim Warfare:
We can always beat the French.
This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Haitians, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
Ivory Coast Conflict: On the way to losing (remember the First Rule of African Warfare!).

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's. With fond memories of its World War II (third act) victories, forms new military alliance with Germany against the US.

60th Anniversary of D-Day: France repulses an invasion of elderly British veterans who seek to attend memorial ceremonies on the beaches of Normandy.

October, 2005: France passes a law making it mandatory for school textbooks to teach that French colonialism was "positive" ("school programs recognize in particular the positive character of the French overseas presence, notably in North Africa"). This provision is part of a law recognizing the "national contribution" of Frenchmen who colonized Algeria for 132 years and who fought on the losing side of the War of Algerian Independence (see above).

Today: The French government raises its terror alert level from run to hide. The only two higher levels in France are surrender and collaborate. The raise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed one of France's white flag factories, disabling their military.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be


Can we count on the French?
but rather

How long until France collapses?


Sorry for the long cut and paste,but much like 9/11/01 there are just some things we must never forget,among them is that frenchieland is a POS country


Edit to highlight in Red one of the greatest travesties of WWI,the last best chance to dilute the cowardly gene pool of frenchieland,but someone had to issuie condoms to US GIs and British Tommies
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:25:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:26:59 PM EDT by JohnParis]
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Originally Posted By JohnParis:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

Hi John. What part of the red highlighted portion did you not comprehend?




I think that you cannot write one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. Like one of your leaders said one day: “You are with US or against US in the WOT”.

We are with YOU, according to me. We should be more active, but we are allies.

Please make you decision Mister CITADELGRAD87.

Tell me, is France supporting the U.S. (not enough, surely)? Or are we a rogue state threatening your country?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:28:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnParis:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

The litmus test is usually this:
a) Did you believe that the French liberated themselves?
b) What %age of the French population do you believe were members of the Resistance?



a) NO! but the Free French forces took an active part in combat:

During the Italian campaign of 1943, 100,000 Free French soldiers fought on the Allied side. By the time of the Normandy Invasion, the Free French forces numbered more than 400,000 people.

By September 1944 the Free French forces stood at 560,000, which rose to 1 million by the end of 1944, and were fighting in Alsace, the Alps and Brittany. By the end of the war in Europe (May 1945), the Free French forces comprised 1,250,000, including 7 infantry and 3 armoured divisions fighting in Germany.

At this time, there were 5 million US, British and Canadian soldiers in Europe. And we must remember their sacrifice, and never forget.



About 200 000 French soldiers have been killed during the war, plus 400 000 civilians.

b) Few. May be 0.5 % (200 000 on 40 000 000), but it’s very hard to say, and a very controversial subject, even now. but Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."




Well Bud, guess this'll have to do. Arfcom doesn't yet have an icon of two Pierres clinking wine glasses together.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:32:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnParis:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Originally Posted By JohnParis:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

Hi John. What part of the red highlighted portion did you not comprehend?




I think that you cannot write one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. Like one of your leaders said one day: “You are with US or against US in the WOT”.

We are with YOU, according to me. We should be more active, but we are allies.

Please make you decision Mister CITADELGRAD87.

Tell me, is France supporting the U.S. (not enough, surely)? Or are we a rogue state threatening your country?



It would be the latter sir,IMHO your countries sale of weapons to Iraq and telling sadam we would never invade right up untill the invasion,destroying any chance he would take exile and make the invasion not needed should be enough proof to any patriotic American your country is not an allie,and maybe even an enemy
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:35:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnParis:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Originally Posted By JohnParis:
Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

france (intentional) did not help anyone else in the GWOT (although I recall reading an intel analysis about cooperation after 9-11 that would disagree.)

Hi John. What part of the red highlighted portion did you not comprehend?




I think that you cannot write one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. Like one of your leaders said one day: “You are with US or against US in the WOT”.

We are with YOU, according to me. We should be more active, but we are allies.

Please make you decision Mister CITADELGRAD87.

Tell me, is France supporting the U.S. (not enough, surely)? Or are we a rogue state threatening your country?



Look, John, my point in participating at all was to confirm French (capitalized out of respect for you, John) resolve to absolutely NUKE those who France determines to be a mortal threat. I don't understand what about that premise would set you off.

In placing my comments in context, I acknowledged that I personally have read an intelligence sumary that was very complimentary of the French cooperation with the U.S. after 9-11, "Treat them as is they are our own" or some such directive from Mr. Chirac to his intell people. That same article, BTW, was pretty critical of the UK in the same areas. Other than the confines of that article, I know little.

I never in any post implied or meant to convey that I thought there was a threat to the U.S or the U.K by the French position. I meant that the French WILL nuke terrorists if the terrs force their hand.

I don't hold France or any country to a standard requiring them to act in OUR interests as opposed to their own. Frequently through history, France and the U.S. have had identical interests, chasing Hitler off the face of the earth, for example.

So, from me, saying France is not standing with us on an issue is not an indictment, certainly not a claim that they are rogue or a threat.

Likewise, saying I elieve France will nuke her enemies is not any statemet that they may nuke the U.S., I mean an enemy we share, radical fundimental islam.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 12:42:13 PM EDT
Since Coklink is a military expert-historian, I will be happy to hear him about all the wars U.S. have won since 1945.

Sorry.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top