Leave it to the french.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1179751,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1179751,00.html)

Well, someone's got to do it and it makes sense that it be a sleazeball known for sticking up for the nazis. Who else would take the job and do their best? Every country has a few lawyers like this, this guy just happens to be French. I'm not going to blame the French in general for this guy deciding to take the case.

Oh please, you think there arent a million american lawyers who would be drooling all over this?

By defending the people who nobody wants to defend, you protect the rights of all.

Aye, leave it to the French.
Leave it to the French to present someone who has actually a smither of intelligence and experience that surpasses any US lawyer to beable to take on a case of such magnitude and importance.
Leave it to the French?
God forbid we left it to you.

"As defending lawyer, my case is this: He's guilty! BURN HIM! THIS IS A FAIR TRIAL! RAWWWRR!" *lawyer noises*

I'm actually not sure what my point was there. So uh, you're an idiot! Yah, that's what I wanted to say. And well, what Tremain said. And LL!

Hey a cookie! *walks off*

Halo knows absolutely nothing about the American Justice system, as evidenced by his post.

Why don't you get off the anti-American crusade for like 5 minutes and realize how much of a little twat you come off as in your posts.

Oh I'm sorry - as opposed to the overwhelming evidence for the snide remark about the French?
If Johnny Yank shuts the fuck up on these forums, then I will too.

And don't use my word "twat". You just look like a cunt.

It's nothing to worry about. The French attorney will surely surrender at the first hint of resistance.

someone tell Halo that the Brits hate the French and make fun of them all the time.

I'm starting to you think you aren't a Brit at all but a new member of that alarming class of "European Union Member."

LoL Halo.. that's all I'm going to say.

'It's nothing to worry about. The French attorney will surely surrender at the first hint of resistance. '

- You know, this kind of remark amuses me.
I think if we were to compare the amount of wars the French have been in against you Yanks, you would be eclipsed. Even if it were within 250 years of your existence.
I don't mean the bombing from 1000 feet in the air, I don't mean the "jump in and jump out" sort of fighting. I don't mean wars that are already decided before the fight begins. I mean WARS.
You know, the Great kind that tears a country apart, continuously, bringing it to the brink of destruction for four years that saw millions die, only to have it happen all again 20 years later, to fight alone against a menace that is only countered when the rest of the world wakes slowly up.
Bearing the brunt of assault and blood shed the likes no one else has seen, being the focus of aggression that other countries pee their little pants thinking about.
And after that, after all that, being completely overwhelmed and abandoned even by your own allies, being occupied by an enemy so beyond your ability to fight that it would take half the world years to finally quell... after all that, being able to submerge and fight them off...

And you guys what? Run at the sight of the Vietcong? Those guys with straw hats?

Get some perspective.

'someone tell Halo that the Brits hate the French and make fun of them all the time. '

- Ah. The entire British nation hates France and makes fun of them endlessly?
Boy that's a new one to me. Everyone I know loves France. With the exception of some bitter, right-winged anti-Euro newspaper editors.

If the replies I'm getting lately weren't so hopelessly derived of wit, humour, or general logic and understanding, I'd actually feel inclined to give you my spare change out of charity.

To further enlighten folks about the glorious history of France and her amazing military history. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html)

Not knocking the French but having Halo defend them is just....

outlandish.

Yer doing more to harm their cause then you could ever imagine.

Fandros

'To further enlighten folks about the glorious history of France and her amazing military history.'

- That is perhaps the most poorly informed list of historic military conflicts I've ever seen.
I had a good laugh for about 20 minutes at the "saved by America" comment. And I'm not easily amused!

That is perhaps the most poorly informed list of historic military conflicts

Yet you keep yapping without providing any backup to your statement.

I'm sorry.. do what?
Are you actually asking for evidence that France was involved in both world wars and lost millions of people?
Or are you seriously asking me to consult a document that refers to the French as "Frogophiles"? Which I'm sure the average American would laugh his head off at.

And you guys what? Run at the sight of the Vietcong? Those guys with straw hats?

The French were run off by the Vietnamese in the 40's.

'The French were run off by the Vietnamese in the 40's. '

- As always, not as simple as yourself.
The French had ruled Vietnam for 100 years, just submerged from 2 world wars, and at the same time were fighting half of the indo-chinese regions.

Somewhat different from the world's super power fighting the Vietcong with napalm.

Okay, granted the link I posted certainly falls in the over simplified version of history category, lets expand on them for all the kiddies at home.

The Gallic Wars (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0820067.html) - A brief overview. Basically, Caesar split up the arriving Helveti, then crushed them. Then put down a Germanic uprising, then he put down some rowdy Belgians, after which he routed a league of Anti-Romans in Brittany. Interestingly enough, he then had to come back and combat another invading German army, after defeating them, he invaded Germany on a punitive strike, most likely just to make a point. Hell, this is getting too long, read the link yourself. Case in point, Caesar, the Italian, defeated Gaul and set the points for the French nation to be born.


The Hundred Years War (http://www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/hundred_years_war.html) - Which technically covered 229 years, but who's counting? France consistantly makes some gains in land only to lose it due to fuedal infighting. It's not until that female schizo, Joan of Arc, inspires some national pride in the French that they learn to work together against the common enemy, the English. Englands final stronghold in France wasn't cleared out until 1565. But hey, at least the French got it done. I tried to confirm where exactly Saint Joan was born, which was easy enough to find, but it appears that she genuinely was French. So in this case, it appears the first link I had might have been inaccurate about her origins. Gasp!

The Italian Wars 1494 -1559 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/it/ItalianW.html) - Good grief. Keeping track of how many times Napels and Genoa traded hands is like counting the number of outfits a Vegas showgirl wears in one night. End result, France had some victories but ultimately lost control of it's gains in Italy to Spain. After the Spanish kicked the crap out of the Italians that kicked the crap out of the French.

The Wars of Religion 1562–98 (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841497.html) This was actually fascinating to read. Six civil wars in regards to Freedom of Religion and the right of establishment. Two subjects that are still pertinant to this day. Kind of scary to see how far we HAVEN'T come in 400 years.

The Thirty Years War 1618 - 1659 (http://www.strategos.demon.co.uk/tywhome/) Catholics Vs Protestants Round 2.

The War of Revolution, couldnt really find anything about this one, so I'll need to look for a generic history of that time period.

The French-Dutch War 1672 - 1678 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/du/DutchWar.html) You'll have to scroll down a little, it seems the Dutch and the English went at it a few times as well. Speaking of, anyone remember that great game "Pirates!" that came out during the mid 80's. That game was set during this time period.

War of the Grand Alliance 1688-97 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/gr/GrandAll.html) France vs England, Round 4.

The War of Spanish Succession 1701 - 1714 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/sp/SpanSuc.html) - Everybody and their mother was involved in this one. Everyone vs everyone. France still got its ass kicked though.

Okay, I actually need to get some work done at this point, but I will continue this later.

1. Go to Google.Com
2. Enter "french military victories"
3. Press the "I'm feeling lucky" button...

This one never gets old.

Nihou!

I'm sorry, but I'm with the Americans and aparently everyone else on the point of generally "The French suck chipmunk nuts". Coming from a Mongol, that's something.

The French had ruled Vietnam for 100 years, just submerged from 2 world wars, and at the same time were fighting half of the indo-chinese regions.

Why were they there, messing with people who were over a hundred years behind them technicaly, and yet still being booted out? (Not that Americans, British, Chinese and others on the 'A-B-C' list don't do it.)

How much money does France owe the U.N. these days? Anyone?

Why is it that there seem to be two races living in France? They seem to divide themselves up into 'Parisians' and French. I've tried to spot what may or may not be different between them, but I can't find it, and nobody can explain it to me other than "Parisians live in Paris. French don't." Myself, I thought they were all bipeds.

Back to Saddam: Tremain's right. Any law-type on the planet of any renown would love to do this case and defend Saddam: The book rights alone are guaranteed millions in the currency of choice, with the lecture circuit afterward being a nice bit of change in the pocket also. Win or lose, the lawyer will win in the end...after all, he won't be the one going to jail/dying/being fed to 8 starved pigs.


With Tolerance For Poodles...They's Good Eatin'!...

Valarian

Beating up on the French is like kicking a crippled dog with a collapsed lung...it's fun for a while but it's just not right.

- Ah. The entire British nation hates France and makes fun of them endlessly?
Boy that's a new one to me. Everyone I know loves France. With the exception of some bitter, right-winged anti-Euro newspaper editors.

Check more movies and books...one excellent example is Beckett (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057877/)

It's the little things, like Becket telling his king that he will love using forks for pronging meat and carrying it to his mouth -- it's very....un-Norman.

Perhaps it's a generational thing...my dad loves France and is English and makes fun of the French all the time.

Oh dear god...
So you've presented me with another list, just as mis-informed as the first one, in attempt to convince people that the French "suck"?
Oh man, this is going to be fun.

'The Gallic Wars'

- Well mate, incase you didn't notice, most of Europe was controlled by the Romans. Trying to use this as a point for the suckage of France due to the ancient Celt's and Gauls being ass-rammed by the Ceasers is about as logical as me telling you that you suck because your European descendents got their asses kicked as well.
So your first point is completely and utterly moot (oh, and stupid. Don't forget stupid).

'The Hundred Years War '

- You just presented me with a war France won. Are you arguing for or against yourself? France cleared the English off the continent. Normandy fell, Calais fell, gains in Aquiataine dusted..We held more of France than the French did at one point. How much land to we own now? There's your answer.

'End result, France had some victories but ultimately lost control of it's gains in Italy to Spain'

- I don't think there's a nation in the world who hasn't lost some of its foreign territories (see Britain: all). Are you actually using these examples as why France sucks?! Can you please pass me whatever it is you are smoking.

'The Wars of Religion 1562–98 '

- Uhm.. why do you have a civil war in the list? Is there a limit to how retarded you are? No, wait. Please, please don't answer.

'The Thirty Years War 1618 - 1659 '

- *puts his head in his lap and cries*
If I could only resist replying, perhaps you'd do the job of looking like a silly tart better yourself.

'The War of Revolution, couldnt really find anything about this one, so I'll need to look for a generic history of that time period.'

- Yes, good point on why France sucks.

'The French-Dutch War 1672 - 1678'

- If you are refering to the final Anglo-Dutch war, both France and Britain came out better than they went in (as England did in all three wars). Especially for Britain, emerging as the only supereme Maritime power. You'll also note (hell even your own link shows it) that there were a few spectacular successes made by the French.

'War of the Grand Alliance 1688-97 '

- You'll find that the number extends beyond round four, mate.
France beaten in this war, yep. Possibly the only RELEVENT and LOGICAL one on your entire "list". But if any country had come up against Britain during the beginning of its Maritime height of power, then they too would have been crushed. On a side note...
"The naval war, of which the first major battle was the French victory at Beachy Head (1690),"
... I live at Beachy head :p Right next to Hastings also (Battle of Hastings - 1066).

'The War of Spanish Succession 1701 - 1714 '

- Did you know all of the allied countries combined lost more men than France alone during that war? Take Provence for example, even says it in your link. Was a masacre. Throw in the spectacular gang-bang via the defecting states of Portugal and Savoy, and the fact that towards the end of the conflict, the Dutch and Germans were both beaten off by the French.. well a loss? No. No one was beaten. The intervention and succession of a favourable Monarch was the only factor to bring the countries to negotiate peace. Though from a perspective, you could say the allies had gained their initial agenda, to stop the growing power of King Louis.

Mate - you are trying to convince a Europe-history buff that the French were a military saddness.
They weren't. France was one of the dominant powers in Europe from the Roman withdrawel until this very day. They've suffered defeats, as has every nation. Hell, actually think you'd find that the British have actually lost more than the French, though admittedly we have had more to loose in the past.

The entire Yanky mood on this forum, and this time in the world, is to try, from every angle, to put some hurt in to the French, simply because they don't believe in blowing up countries for reasons that turned out to be false beyond all counts.
But to try and argue that a list of French military conflicts that were or were not failures, concludes that the French are hopeless.. well... Like I said, give me the fucking Peace Pipe for a smoke.

You Yanks are getting pathetic.
Bloody good thread though. Despite my insults, feel free to respond. I love discussing European history.

'Perhaps it's a generational thing'

- My parents love France. Which ultimately means all of their generation loves France.

'...my dad loves France and is English and makes fun of the French all the time. '

- Oh. Well then all of us British must also.
I can tell you, there's a lot more mocking of America than there is of France over here.

Nice of a French national to agree to defend a former ally of America. Least some people don't hold grudges.

Though your comment does make sense Ledge the US did in fact give the Iraqis weapons to fight off Iran there is another side to the coin. (pardon the cliche)

When Bush pushed for war on Iraq, the French were firmly against it. One can only speculate, but if one can delve the UN a little they can find something on the sanctions placed on Iraq.

This is only sketchy since I dont remember all of it, but the way it worked was that the Iraqi military was allowed to have missile engines that could go a certain distance, but no farther. (now the decision for that was made in part by US, so guess what, those engines the Iraqis were allowed to have werent capable of reaching any part of the States.)

But the thing is, the French were selling (illegally I would guess because it violates the UN restrictions placed on Iraq and any country trading) engines that could go further than the ones they were allowed to have. Do not know if they had the capability to hit the States, but they were certainly long enough range to hit more than just the Middle East.

The providers of these -illegal- missile engines were privately owned industry provided, but the French government did not do anything (as far as I know and have been able to find) to stop the shipping of the engines.

I can tell you, there's a lot more mocking of America than there is of France over here
Oh Noz! Not the mocking!

Man, I thought the French gave the USA the Statue of Liberty? Why all the h8?

Today I told one of my friends Halo was gay...


OMG WTFPWNED!

Mock +1

Why all the h8?
French fries weren't salty enough. :(
OMG WTFPWNED!
When they asked you "Who is Halo?" ? :b

And yes Val, Parisians are... from Paris and no it's not the same! 0]

freedom fries!

but...mr. stupid american fast food chain owner...the process for making french fries was developed in Belgium.

I admit medieval European history mostly bores me, but just off the top of my head, I notice Norman conquest of Britian and the entire early history of the Holy Roman Empire missing from the list. I guess it depends on who exactly you are calling "French", the Gauls, the Normans, the Franks, the Goths, the Visigoths, or one of the other dozen ethnic tribes that moved about Northern Europe in that time period.

The French fired the first shot in the modern struggle for self-determination and the right of nations. Without the French, there wouldn't be a United States as we know it today. Don't get me wrong, their food sucks ( snails and rotted cheese? ), their language is the bastard child of the Romance languages, and they can be insufferable at times. But the French are ok in my book.

Fil

Three points:

First: Bite me EZ board for eating my first reply.

Second: Halo, you missed the point of the posts I made. I was merely giving an abridged version of the link from albinoblacksheep. By no means was it a super accurate analysis. Had you bothered to read any of the links, and I do recommend you do as they are relatively informative, you would have seen that the basic facts presented were accurate.

Third: As a former Air Defender, I paid close attention to the types of TBM's that the Iraqi's had. Fortunately, they lacked the engine assemblies that were capable of reaching the continental US. There was evidence found of several North Korean TBM fuselages that were in various stages of disassebmly. These, technicaly, have the ability to reach most of Western Europe. There was question as to the accuracy of their guidance systems however, as they lacked some of the more advanced capabilities. It was speculated that the Iraqi's were using a modified guidance system from their Al-Hussein (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al_hussein.htm) SCUD missile. If thats the case, then accuracy was going to be an issue. If launched, they might be aiming for London, but there was a good chance they would hit the Mediterrenean Sea. Iraqi's also had a big problem with the fuselage of the missile breaking during re-entry. Upon re-entry into the atmosphere, the warhead would tend to break away from the main fuselage, creating instability in its flight path. It also wreaks havoc on ground tracking systems, as they have to spend precious extra seconds tracking two incoming targets instead of one. In most cases, the warhead weighs more so it begins to fall at a faster rate of speed than the main fuselage. Of course, it's also fallen several thousand meters by the time the computers could determine which was the real target and begin the launch of the intercepting air defense systems.

Okay, well, I took a major turn in that post. I need more coffee.

Edit, if anyone cares, the suspected North Korean missile fuselages I referred to were the No-Dong-1 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/nd-1.htm)

You know, this kind of remark amuses me.
I think if we were to compare the amount of wars the French have been in against you Yanks, you would be eclipsed. Even if it were within 250 years of your existence.



You know, Halo got you guys.

He wasn't debating their cheese eating surrender monkey ways, he was just saying they'd been in more wars than us - not whether they won or lost or surrendered.

'Had you bothered to read any of the links, and I do recommend you do as they are relatively informative, you would have seen that the basic facts presented were accurate.'

- My knowledge of European history is OKay as it is, but I did read the links. See above for my reaction, incase you didn't read my reply.
Half of them were FOR the French, and the rest were both illogical or completely beyond relevance. Civil War? What the bloody hell..

And.. why are you talking about missles?

freedom fries!

French cut fried potatos.

Anyhow, the only facts that really matter are: France is still there, and the French still speak French (except in Brittany, but that is like a Cockney and speaking English, really).

I'm glad they they honed their terror tactics when the Germans were in charge... errr... had FREEDOM FIGHTERS waging guerrilla warfare against the Germans.

Sorry about that, sometimes is is hard to tell who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. I guess it depends who wins at the end.

Naw, its not hard to distinguish. Freedom fighters target the military/leadership of their enemies. You know, destroying the military structure of their enemies as a continuance of war. Terrorists intentionally target anyone at all associated with their enemies (especially women, children, religious institutions, etc.) They try to win by attacking the "will" rather than the "means". Simple.

Unfortunately, many freedom fighters eventually cross the line into terrorists when their original tactics don't produce the result they want. I sort of see the PLO as falling into this group. They started as a military organization trying to defeat the Israeli military but changed tactics when they failed.

I don't recall ever hearing that the French resistance ever crossed into Germany specifically to kill German civilians during WWII. Hence, they were considered freedom fighters. In Israel/Palastine you do have people specifically trying to kill non military personnel in order to weaken the "will". That is a clear example of terrorism. At least, that is my take on the whole thing.

Many of you would likely add the military of nations at war into the terrorist camp since civilians are always killed in war. I happen to disagree with that definition, mainly because *most* militaries do not try to kill civilians as a target in and of themselves..You could reasonably argue that the Allied nations in WWII made that transition with area fire bombing of cities and I would concede the point. But that type of bombing has not been done since precisely because it is morally questionable.

Terrorists intentionally target anyone at all associated with their enemies (especially women, children, religious institutions, etc.) They try to win by attacking the "will" rather than the "means". Simple.


Oh... like the allies bombing Dresden and other civilian targets in WW II?

These things depend largely on where you stand on the issue. The PLO considers itself an army of freedom fighters- others consider them terrorists.

As I said, it all depends on who wins and gets to dictate pubilic opinion in many cases.

'Oh... like the allies bombing Dresden and other civilian targets in WW II?'

'You could reasonably argue that the Allied nations in WWII made that transition with area fire bombing of cities and I would concede the point. But that type of bombing has not been done since precisely because it is morally questionable.
'

- Gulor's always one step ahead :p
And we love him for it!

Regarding Dresden, etc. See my last paragraph above and you will note that I recognize that was likely a terrorist act.

Halo, see my comment about some French privately owned industries illegally selling missile engines to the Iraqis that were in violation of the UN sanctions placed on what the Iraqi military could and could not have. That is what Giena is commenting on.

Yeah, that is what I get for posting in a hurry. Still:

But that type of bombing has not been done since precisely because it is morally questionable.

I'd say because it is INEFFECTIVE, not morally questionable.

I'd say because it is INEFFECTIVE, not morally questionable.

Worked on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Let me put it another way:

The goal of war is to win. That is the ONLY goal.

Carpet bombing civilian targets could possibly result in all other countries that are able banding together to defeat you- and I'd hardly call having everyone on earth gunning for you the best way to win a war.

Now, if you could somehow bomb a country back into the stone age and convince everyone else to let it go... it would be the best course of action to take- avoid the messy ground fight and all that.

(disclaimer) I'll talk about the morality of nations vs. the morality of an individual if I have to, but I'd really rather not.

I agree that to win is the goal. But keep in mind war is a political exercise as well and you can find yourself in worse shape politically if you resort to means other countries try to punish. If you lose and have resorted to means that western society (at least) has deemed barbaric or "terroristic", expect to be put on trial afterwords. Expect to be labelled as a terrorist and reviled for evil deeds during the conflict, possibly afterwards even if you win. It's a price you pay for using tactics "outside the rules".

More and more rules are being placed on the conduct of war as time goes on by a consensus of nations (mostly western). I think you will find more and more "war crimes" being defined as time goes on as well.

halo, I have lots of family in europe and your statements simply don't coincide with my experience. I don't need your imprimateur on my experiences to make them real or valid or generalizable.

But please continue on with the angry young man ultra-contrarian theme, when enough people just stop bothering with you, you can find a new way to annoy them.

'halo, I have lots of family in europe and your statements simply don't coincide with my experience'

- Oh, many from Medieval Europe?

Fighters in Chechnya (or how you spell it) were morally supported by US before 9/11. After that US was willing to consider them as terrorists. Being a freedom fighter or a terrorist, you see, is relative. What current politics need.
(I do, however, consider them as terrorists from the beginning of that conflict).

Better. Basques are terrorists? They have nationality, land where they live together attached to other countries. They do no directly attack full civilian targets (happened like 2-3 times afaik in the last 20 years) but politicians, judges, etc who are against their independence.

Were French, or Yugoslavian partisans terrorists when they killed collaborating civilians in their own country?

Was the IRA terrorist group, when they blew up police and military outposts?

Was the Red Brigades, Baden-Meinhoff group,

Are Kurds terrorists? Do they have the right to unite their nation?

UCK (in Kosovo?)

Some is clearly terrorist, some (not from these) are freedom frighters, but there are some which hard to categorize, and the opinion of US, Russia, etc will only depend on the current political interest, nothing more.

About the nukes and carpet bombings. Were they ok? Did they work in Hirosima and Nagasaki?
Dou you think the some hunderdthousand victim and their relatives agree with you? Would you agree, if Russia would have nuked 10.000.000 ppl out of New York? At least try to be rational, Aikpt.

More on terrorist grps if anyone interested:

library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm)

Did they work in Hirosima and Nagasaki?

Ask L2 this very same question. He has supplied article on top of article that yes they did indeed work and a hell of a lot less deaths over all occured with what happened.

Halo, please don't take my future of ignoring you as tacit agreement or endorsement of your views. Trying to engage you in discussion is pointless and a waste of time.

Ask L2 this very same question. He has supplied article on top of article that yes they did indeed work and a hell of a lot less deaths over all occured with what happened.

I dont think that 200.000 civilians would agree with you. (thats 60xWTC)
And see my other 2 questions, im not sure if Germany manages to develop the nukes first (they were not that far)
then you would agree with using it on your forces, on your land, on your allies.

You can't know how many casualties would have occured if you don't nuke. Blocading japan islands might have worked 2, since Japanese industry is dead without import.

Nuking now, would been nuclear arsenal would be handled to the terrorists after.

Horizonal scroll bars are bad mmkay? Use "quote" and "/quote" not "code, /code" -Vhex

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I dont think that 200.000 civilians would agree with you. <hr></blockquote>

Course they wouldn't. They're dead. Duh.

You can't know how many casualties would have occured if you don't nuke.

Neither do you and lets not forget we didn't ask Japan to bomb Perl Harbor. Thats a sore spot for many Americans. Bottom line..sting the Americans you gonna get burnt.

Had Japan not bombed Perl Harbor what would of the outcome of WWII been?

How this thread started going in this direction I don't even know.


Ibudin

Well discluding all the trash about french military stuff and how we surrender blablabla ( why bother answering that stuff, its not going to go anywhere)

jacques Verges is probably the most mediatised lawyer in france, he is the guy that defended "lost cases", mass murderer, nazis, red army killers, cambodgia murderer etc etc.

They didn't pick an american lawyer because they couldn't. All the arabs people pretty much hate the usa so that would be kind of a paradoxe huh? Verges is mostly full of crap like usual and the big big majority in france really dislike the fact he got picked to defend saddam because of the useless bad blood it will create again between the us and france ( this post is a living proof of it).

It would seems that most people here cannot make a difference between a country and one Lawyer that only think about cash.


ps: as far as france military history is concerned, you guys know as well as me that this list has a ton of missinformation so why bother arguing on it.

'ps: as far as france military history is concerned, you guys know as well as me that this list has a ton of missinformation so why bother arguing on it. '

- Because it's fun, especially when people end an argument with "I know better because my dad is from.. blahblahblah. Now I'm going to ignore you!"
I tell ya, can't get halfway through an argument these days without someone wussing out.
Bring me Yhogurtballs or Blearchie. Used to beat a dead donkey in to dust. Fun times.
Hell, even Wayfarer. Well.. it usually just degenerated in to him trying to highlight my spelling errrororrers.

Iamascsi-

Looking at your list, I would put all the groups mentioned into the terrorist camp to a certain degree. Keep in mind both the French resistance and Yugoslavian partisans were NOT a single organization, but rather a number of groups working towards the same goal but often using different tactics. Some were probably using terrorism when they were killing collaberators (depending upon the degree of collaboration). Other groups like the IRA did bomb military targets, but they also bombed department stores making them clearly terrorist in intent.

Note that lumping Chechnya with the Chechen militant groups is like saying all Saudis are Al Qaeda. The US was not supporting the militants as freedom fighters, they were opposing wholesale slaughter of non-militant Chechens as a means to defeat them. With 9/11, the US admittedly became a lot less concerned with the niceties and we became much more sympathetic to the Russians.

The political goal (seperate nation, forming a new nation based on an ethnic group or whatever) does not make a group terrorist. What they do to reach that goal is.

But keep in mind war is a political exercise as well and you can find yourself in worse shape politically if you resort to means other countries try to punish. If you lose and have resorted to means that western society (at least) has deemed barbaric or "terroristic", expect to be put on trial afterwords

See my statement here:
Now, if you could somehow bomb a country back into the stone age and convince everyone else to let it go... it would be the best course of action to take- avoid the messy ground fight and all that.

I'd agreed with you. Really, a country would have to do something so galvanizing (mass biological or nuclear strikes) and present a clear danger to *everyone* to warrant that kind of treatment these days.