End of the embargo about french products

No problem Nighttrain for the American Independance war. ;)


Why do you say that you are APPALED of France since 100 years ? Appalled seems "terrified", right ?

For the relation between France and USA, read the article of David IGNATIUS from Washington Post. You wilol see that the things are quite better.

You know - or maybe you don't know - I 'm a law student. And I have a little bit International Right (International law ?).
THe States are equal, and no State can interfeer in the inerior job of an other country.
Except for : humanitarian reasons (Rwanda, Somalia) .
If the national subjet are in danger, the country can go here to protect them (Ivory Coast), and also, when the UNO give a mandate.

Iraq : no one of these reason >> against the International rules.

From 1823 to 1917 and from 1919 to 1941, USA did the Monroe doctrine, and were isolationnist.

Since 1945, they are interventionnist.
UAS should find the right middle of thses 2 point of view.
 
padisha emperor said:
No problem Nighttrain for the American Independance war. ;)


Why do you say that you are APPALED of France since 100 years ? Appalled seems "terrified", right ?

For the relation between France and USA, read the article of David IGNATIUS from Washington Post. You wilol see that the things are quite better.

You know - or maybe you don't know - I 'm a law student. And I have a little bit International Right (International law ?).
THe States are equal, and no State can interfeer in the inerior job of an other country.
Except for : humanitarian reasons (Rwanda, Somalia) .
If the national subjet are in danger, the country can go here to protect them (Ivory Coast), and also, when the UNO give a mandate.

Iraq : no one of these reason >> against the International rules.

From 1823 to 1917 and from 1919 to 1941, USA did the Monroe doctrine, and were isolationnist.

Since 1945, they are interventionnist.
UAS should find the right middle of thses 2 point of view.

How is the investigation into Chiracs' stealing money from the Iraqi people coming along? Heard any news you can pass on?
 
padisha emperor said:
Why do you say that you are APPALED of France since 100 years ? Appalled seems "terrified", right ?

lol, no. I'm not terrified of France. In this instance, it means very dismayed. Disgusted.

For the relation between France and USA, read the article of David IGNATIUS from Washington Post. You wilol see that the things are quite better.

I'll continue my personal boycott of any French product or service until I decide your country has become worthy of support. Individual Americans do things like that.

You know - or maybe you don't know - I 'm a law student. And I have a little bit International Right (International law ?).
THe States are equal, and no State can interfeer in the inerior job of an other country.
Except for : humanitarian reasons (Rwanda, Somalia) .
If the national subjet are in danger, the country can go here to protect them (Ivory Coast), and also, when the UNO give a mandate.

Iraq : no one of these reason >> against the International rules.

Nevermind that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, used WMDs on them, openly supported terrorists, attempted to assasinate a former U.S. President and defied how many UNSC resolutions?

From 1823 to 1917 and from 1919 to 1941, USA did the Monroe doctrine, and were isolationnist.

See what happens to the world when the USA adopts an isolationist stance?

Since 1945, they are interventionnist.

And as a worthy sidenote, you haven't had your country taken over since 1945, isn't that some kind of record?

I would think you'd be pleased with our Policeman role.
 
NightTrain said:
And as a worthy sidenote, you haven't had your country taken over since 1945, isn't that some kind of record?

I would think you'd be pleased with our Policeman role.

Whoooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Game, set, match.

Next?
 
not sure that we would be invade after 1945......
France had not so bad relations with USSR....and if France was atacked, we would defend ourselves - the 1940 defeat gave a generation of courageous guy, ashamed by Viochy and who wanted to fight anaginst the ennemies - like in Indochina - .... ;)

for the fact that Saddam was an ugly dictator, of course, nobody deny it.

But the fact is that it hurts the UNO, but also the INTERNATIONAL LAWS.
in the national laws, if somebody breaks the rules, he would be punished. For the coutries, it is the same thing.
USA can not do all what they want when they want if they want, because it hurts the international laws.
What will you say if France or UK or Russia go to make war in a country to free the people ? like in Saudi Arabia, where the human rights are not respected...UAS will not agree, it would break the international laws - except if there is an interest for UAS, like oil, in this situation, they will jump to join the war -

And why USA, the nation who free countries lead by dictator (who were sometimes putted by USA) and transform the country in a devasted zone, don't go to N-Korea , Ugly dictator, human rights are not at all respected, the population take a lot in it face, lot of massacres, concentration camps.. and It is a great potential danger for the peace of the world........
 
padisha emperor said:
not sure that we would be invade after 1945......
France had not so bad relations with USSR....and if France was atacked, we would defend ourselves - the 1940 defeat gave a generation of courageous guy, ashamed by Viochy and who wanted to fight anaginst the ennemies - like in Indochina - .... ;)

for the fact that Saddam was an ugly dictator, of course, nobody deny it.

But the fact is that it hurts the UNO, but also the INTERNATIONAL LAWS.
in the national laws, if somebody breaks the rules, he would be punished. For the coutries, it is the same thing.
USA can not do all what they want when they want if they want, because it hurts the international laws.
What will you say if France or UK or Russia go to make war in a country to free the people ? like in Saudi Arabia, where the human rights are not respected...UAS will not agree, it would break the international laws - except if there is an interest for UAS, like oil, in this situation, they will jump to join the war -

And why USA, the nation who free countries lead by dictator (who were sometimes putted by USA) and transform the country in a devasted zone, don't go to N-Korea , Ugly dictator, human rights are not at all respected, the population take a lot in it face, lot of massacres, concentration camps.. and It is a great potential danger for the peace of the world........

Listen dish-------you are in NO postion to be telling anybody to obey laws---your president stole food and medicine right out of the hands of starving Iraqis and corrupted everything the UN stands for. Clean up your own maison !!!!!!!!!!!! It stinks !!!!!!!!!
 
padisha emperor said:
not sure that we would be invade after 1945......
France had not so bad relations with USSR....and if France was atacked, we would defend ourselves - the 1940 defeat gave a generation of courageous guy, ashamed by Viochy and who wanted to fight anaginst the ennemies - like in Indochina - .... ;)

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
That's funny as hell. You tried to put up a defense when the Nazis invaded. You had an army, air force and navy which were all commanded by total idiots. Your soldiers and sailors died because your armed forces were commanded by strutting fools like DeGaulle who had no idea how to fight a war. The Nazis went through your country like shit through a goose. The Iraqi army put up more resistance to our guys than the french forces managed against the Nazis.

If the Russians had wanted france, your government would have first attempted to appease them by kissing their asses. If that didn't work, DeGaulle would have high-tailed it for England - again - and left the rest of the country to surrender - again.

And how did Viet Nam get to be your enemy? Had something to do with french colonialism as I recall. So the "enemy" you were fighting was one that you created.
:smoke:
 
hey, dummy, read something instead of throwing here your filth....

That's funny as hell. You tried to put up a defense when the Nazis invaded. You had an army, air force and navy which were all commanded by total idiots. Your soldiers and sailors died because your armed forces were commanded by strutting fools like DeGaulle who had no idea how to fight a war. The Nazis went through your country like shit through a goose. The Iraqi army put up more resistance to our guys than the french forces managed against the Nazis.

If the Russians had wanted france, your government would have first attempted to appease them by kissing their asses. If that didn't work, DeGaulle would have high-tailed it for England - again - and left the rest of the country to surrender - again.

And how did Viet Nam get to be your enemy? Had something to do with french colonialism as I recall. So the "enemy" you were fighting was one that you created.

first, De Gaulle was colonel when the war begin, and lead a tank squad.
And he was not at the HQ, and above all, he won some fights against germans, because he did the "blitzkrieg" way. Before the war he wrote a book who speak of the better ustilisation of the battle tank - like the Germans did - .


Second, French soldiers resisted. But when your HQ is dumb, what do you want ? you can't do anything...the english forces in France and Belgium in 1940 were also surprised....not only the French. But the sldiers fought.
THe rivers were defended, the regiment fought until the last ammo.

And Dunkirk show to you the valour and the sacrifice of the French, guy.

You speak of Indochinia....the ennemy, like you said, had several origins.
But the ennemy was armoured by CHina and USSR..........
but why are you speaking of that ? when I mentionned Indochinia I didn't speak of that......


oh, a last thing : The Iraqi army put up more resistance to our guys than the french forces managed against the Nazis.
But after 1940, the french resistance attacked the Nazis and helped the Allies.......amazing, because now, the Iraqis resisted also against the USA.......

For dillo : USA break more rulse, and these rules were more important : the violation of the sovereignty of an independant and recognized State is maybe the highest violation of the international laws.....that's exactly what the UAS did in Iraq. THey had no mandate and it was not to protect US citizen in Iraq.

THat's hurting Europe : USA do like the wolrd belong to them. And make "pervention attacks" to " protect themselves"......but no WMD in Iraq, and not really a world danger in comapraison with NK.
In fact, the NATION - the State, if you prefer - who disturb the most the wolrd peace, actually, this State is : USA
 
padisha emperor said:
You speak of Indochinia....the ennemy, like you said, had several origins.
But the ennemy was armoured by CHina and USSR..........
but why are you speaking of that ? when I mentionned Indochinia I didn't speak of that......

What were you talking about then? Like seriously.
 
oh, ok... thank you to explain to me ;)


No no, not at all, I was speaking of the Viet minh.
But after Merlin speak of these ennemies, and I said that they were created by several factors, one of them is the japanese occupation.

But you're right, French fought Japanese, in march... 1945...


But here, I was speaking of Ho chi minh Giap and their troops.
 
how should U.N. resolutions, (laws, decrees, mandates, decisions) be enforced (upheld).
 
padisha emperor said:
oh, ok... thank you to explain to me ;)


No no, not at all, I was speaking of the Viet minh.
But after Merlin speak of these ennemies, and I said that they were created by several factors, one of them is the japanese occupation.

But you're right, French fought Japanese, in march... 1945...


But here, I was speaking of Ho chi minh Giap and their troops.


I think that's what Merlyn was refering to also.
Ho, Giap et al started out fighting the Japanese. Is any wonder why the allies gave Indochine back to France when you consider the geurrilla nationalist/communists movements in Indochina at that time? Who would want to deal with those nuts.
 
I don't really know, but i have some idea :
I will compare with the CEDH (french logo), the European Convention of the Human Rights) : THis Convention is sanctionned by the European law court of the Human rights. This Law Court make that the CEDH is well using, and enforced, the state respect it, because if they don't they had penalties - financial penalties - .

And the European Union has also the CJCE (french logo too), Law Court of the European Community. THis law court enfore ALL the european treaty, all the european decisions, from the European Parliament, and then these treaty are well respected.


The UNO should create a law court - maybe it already exist - or enforced its power, for a good and effectice control.
 
France took back Indochina because it was a french territory.
And France won against the guerrilla, in some battles. It is like the Vietnam, with one difference - 2 in fact - french were not prepared for this kind of war, US were, they could see how the french did to do or not do the same ; French made a big final battle.
 
padisha emperor said:
France took back Indochina because it was a french territory.
And France won against the guerrilla, in some battles. It is like the Vietnam, with one difference - 2 in fact - french were not prepared for this kind of war, US were, they could see how the french did to do or not do the same ; French made a big final battle.

No one had to give Indochina back to France, my point is no one wanted it with the serious potential for gurrilla war fare waged by those who had fought against the Japanese, and now wanted their independence. The french may have won a few battles, but they lost in the end, it was inevitable.
 
Padesha, how should U.N. resolutions be enforced, if at all? Secondly, if they are not enforced, what is the value of the U.N.?
 

Forum List

Back
Top