French prepared to fire on Israeli jets in self-defense!
instinc...@lycos.com
Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
fired back this time!
These Israelis have really been showing their true deviant nature
lately with all these blatant cheap shots at peacekeeping forces.
The "misunderstanding" or "accident" defense won't work anymore. It's
becoming more and more obvious that the IDF is nothing more than a
bunch of jew scum who think that they are the 'chosen ones' and can get
away with any type of thuggery they want. They are really beginning to
expose themselves through their arrogance and blatant misuse of
military weaponry given to them by our own U.S. government.
Harold Burton
The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
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.
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 flower
pots as chapeaux.
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 ever 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."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent
was also 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.
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.
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 - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United
States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel
Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to
bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. 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,
Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
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.
tomcervo
The same historian, no doubt English, would equally quick to point out
that the Americans haven't won a war on their own since 1898.
Now make up a list of 20th century wars that the English won without
the Commonwealth/Empire.
Miles Long
<laughing> I gotta go with you on this one, Harold. If I'm not
mistaken, wasn't the term "surrender monkeys" penned for the
French?
Miles "Common Ground" Long
Stephen Horgan
If you have a Commonwealth or Empire then why on Earth would you not
let them help you in a war?
True Blue
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163083672.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here's a list of the wars we lost;
Regards
TB
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> The same historian, no doubt English, would equally quick to point out
> that the Americans haven't won a war on their own since 1898.
> Now make up a list of 20th century wars that the English won without
> the Commonwealth/Empire.
>
Picking his country's allies carefully is one of the main war winning
acts a statesman can perform.
Andrew Swallow
David E. Powell
Um, goofball.... the French led UN folks in Lebanon aren't doing
anything to stop Hezbollah from arming up, and in many cases aren't
even watching the Syrian border were stuff is coming over, supposedly
because the Lebanese army hasn't asked them to. (I wonder if the
Lebanese would trust the UN force to actually back them in any
confrontation with Hezbollah or Syria anyway) I guess the UN folks are
playing to Damascus by blustering at Israel, and also they figure that
Israel, being civilized and actually concerned with the UN settlement
and keeping the peace, actually listening to the bluster, as Hezbollah
would not. The UN = Useless.
greg...@yahoo.com
instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>
> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> fired back this time!
Can the French handle a fight with Israel? They'll find out if they
shoot at Israeli warplanes.
William Black
<greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>
>> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>> fired back this time!
>
>
> Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
Don't be bloody silly.
For a start they could blockade Israel.
They've got a blue water navy, Israel hasn't...
They're also a major manufacturer of tanks, combat aircraft and build
nuclear powered submarines.
To quote General Schwarzkopf "The Israelis are a bunch of third rate
swaggerers who wouldn't last five minutes in a European war"
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
tomcervo
Stephen Horgan wrote:
> If you have a Commonwealth or Empire then why on Earth would you not
> let them help you in a war?
"let them help you in a war" was usually translated by the IGS as
"spearheading the assaults and rear guarding the retreats."
William Black
realise that it just isn't so.
The best example is Gallipoli where the ANZAC troops went ashore after
British troops landed.
deem...@aol.com
Greg_...@shelled.net wrote:
> The French Navy could reduce Israel's ability to put planes in the air to
> zero in about 1 hour.
And how would they do that? It's hard to blow up runways from the
sea bottom. France's military is stronger than Israel's, but whether
France could project enough power to the Eastern Med is another
question. France's onstation forces would be wiped out in short order.
> The French military aren't Palestinian women and children.
This is way too easy......
Stephen Horgan
Count the dead, then tell me that all parts of the Empire and
Commonwealth didn't do their part.
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
> >> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
> >> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> >>
> >> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> >> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> >> fired back this time!
> >
> >
> > Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
>
> Don't be bloody silly.
>
> For a start they could blockade Israel.
Not without US permission.
Amy Likes Pot!
> Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only
> country to ever lose two wars -- when fighting Italians.
Unless you count the greatest empire of their time: Carthage (of course
that was actually three wars).
Then there is Germany (defeated both by Rome and by Italy in WWI).
And Austria (in 1866 and WWI)
And Libya (by Rome and Italy between World Wars).
And Spain (again, by Rome and in 1860 in the war of Italian Independence).
I know the original post wasn't really about Italy, but I just get a little
over protective!!!!
pigdos
much of the US military either. His estimation is basically the US never
lost because it had the overwhelming advantage and never won a battle in
which the odds were heavily stacked against it (unlike the Israeli
military).
--
Doug
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Amy Likes Pot!
Who would "we" be? If it is the US then you are forgetting about Viet Nam
and also our ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. (Not to
mension Iraq and Afghanistan).
If "we" is the British then you are forgetting about the Roman Invasion,
the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, the Viking Invasions, the Norman Invasion,
Hundren Years War, the American War of Independence, and the War of 1812.
Oh, and don't forget Afghanistan in 1842, 1880, and 1919 (and, lets face
it, 2006).
Everyone loses wars.
Harold Burton
Don't count. Losing wars means having someone else occupy your country,
try your leaders for war crimes, and require you to pay reparations.
Amy Likes Pot!
You're a republican, aren't you? Facts mean nothing to you. You just
decide to change the definitions until you narrow it to your liking. You
won the elections on Tuesday, too, didn't you???
deem...@aol.com
pigdos wrote:
> I know an former Israeli commando ('72' Yom Kippur War) who doesn't think
> much of the US military either. His estimation is basically the US never
> lost because it had the overwhelming advantage and never won a battle in
> which the odds were heavily stacked against it (unlike the Israeli
> military).
Then he needs a history lesson.....as do you, if you believe him.
Brian Allardice
Well, ok, but William hardly counts as "English". Given that Harold
was killed on the field what else is the Doomsday Book but an almost
Teutonic attempt to extract reparations.
Silly argument anyway. All the great 'Boys' Own' victories have come
to naught. Despite Agincourt or the Opium or Zulu Wars or whatever,
it is now all like "snow upon the desert's dusty face" and the UK
counts for little.
Cheers,
dba
pigdos
US force has EVER been. How many times has the US fought a two-front war
separated by hundreds of miles? Maybe you'd better read up on the '72' war
rather than just spouting more nonsensical jingoism.
--
Doug
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163132673.9...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Amy Likes Pot!
> pigdos wrote:
> > I know an former Israeli commando ('72' Yom Kippur War) who doesn't
> > think much of the US military either. His estimation is basically the
> > US never lost because it had the overwhelming advantage and never won a
> > battle in which the odds were heavily stacked against it (unlike the
> > Israeli military).
>
> Then he needs a history lesson.....as do you, if you believe him.
Start with the Battle of New Orleans!
True Blue
"Amy Likes Pot!" <im42...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20061109223905.368$m...@newsreader.com...
We lost the war of 1812??
> Oh, and don't forget Afghanistan in 1842, 1880, and 1919 (and, lets face
> it, 2006).
>
> Everyone loses wars.
Too much pot Ames old girl.....".....a list of 20th century wars that the
English......"
Afghanistan....2006? The Taliban have been routed. Even when ambushed deep
in their territory, we've sent them back "in the same old way".
Brian Allardice
>We lost the war of 1812??
You will note we are not quite yet the 51st state
- or the 52 if you count the UK
so, yes. You lost.
Cheers,
dba
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
pigdos wrote:
> Umm, the Israelis were heavily outnumbered in the '72' was, more so than any
> US force has EVER been. How many times has the US fought a two-front war
> separated by hundreds of miles? Maybe you'd better read up on the '72' war
> rather than just spouting more nonsensical jingoism.
Er, the israelis didn't exactly "win" the 73 war. They began by losing
it, and losing ground, then they got back what they lost, thanks to the
biggest military air supply process in history, organized (for free !)
by the US and the US contributors.
OTOH, the israelis did not win their last war, depsite their being
outnumbering the hezbollah fighter by 30 to 1, and depsite the fact
that they used all the air/naval power they had (to the point that they
ran out of bombs and asked - or ordered - the US to supply them) which
was at least the equivalent of what the US used when invading Iraq. All
they did was killing children and women; apparently they are good at
that, i grant it.
Roedy Green
<instinc...@lycos.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
>Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>fired back this time!
The French are not downtrodden Palestinians who will put up with shit,
content to make a few token killings in reprisal. For the French
there is "l'honeur".
If Israel attacks the French, they will smack the Israelis silly,
perhaps using the reprisal as an excuse to wipe out their entire
nuclear arsenal.
They will think, "How dare these lowly Israeli scum attack the
superior, beneficent French there to help them out."
The French military have some sophisticated home-grown weapons, and
surely they ache for a chance to test them out.
I am pretty sure there would be riots in the streets if France did NOT
give Israel a severe smack across the chops.
We have two haughty nations facing each other.
If I were Israel, I would leave the French alone.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
More than anything else you want the end of the Republican reign of terror.
Buy a big chunk of it at http://www.democrats.org/
Starshiy Nemo
You just forgot that a big lot of israel citizens are also french
citizens !!!!
deem...@aol.com
pigdos wrote:
> Umm, the Israelis were heavily outnumbered in the '72' was, more so than any
> US force has EVER been. How many times has the US fought a two-front war
> separated by hundreds of miles? Maybe you'd better read up on the '72' war
> rather than just spouting more nonsensical jingoism.
It was 1973. Also, I was responding to your point about the
US, not attacking Israel. It's also a lot easier to follow your points
if you don't top-post.
Another history lesson...the US has fought a two-front war
separated by thousands of miles.
alohac...@yahoo.com
> The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
>
have died in violence lately?
I'd say go jump in a lake, but I'm afraid you can't swim.
alohac...@yahoo.com
Starshiy Nemo wrote:
> You just forgot that a big lot of israel citizens are also french
> citizens !!!!
Who cares about traitors?
William Black
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-8013...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
France is a nuclear power who have taken time and trouble not to be part of
the US extended defence umbrella.
Why would they need US permission?
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>Umm, the Israelis were heavily outnumbered in the '72' was, more so than any
>US force has EVER been. How many times has the US fought a two-front war
>separated by hundreds of miles? Maybe you'd better read up on the '72' war
>rather than just spouting more nonsensical jingoism.
You've got to be kidding. The Americans have fought multi-front
wars from their Revolution through their Civil War and up to WWII
(where they had three major fronts hundreds of miles appart in
Europe and at least three more going in the Pacific, not hundreds
but thousands of miles from them).
As for courage and success when outnumbered, you may have heard
of Leyte? They seem to fight well when outnumbered. I can't see
the justice in criticizing them for having the sense to
reinforce.
Peter Skelton
Vince
> Umm, the Israelis were heavily outnumbered in the '72' was, more so than any
> US force has EVER been. How many times has the US fought a two-front war
> separated by hundreds of miles? Maybe you'd better read up on the '72' war
> rather than just spouting more nonsensical jingoism.
>
irrelevant in a modern war.
Vince
Starshiy Nemo
>
Traitors?? They fought too in WWI WWII and so on ....
So your comment is insultant for them
And I appreciate their engagement
PS : were did you or your fathers fought for what you call freedom?
Maybe not far from your asshole
Amy Likes Pot!
Yes, you did. And don't forget the WORLD CLASS ass-kicking you got in New
Orleans!
> > Oh, and don't forget Afghanistan in 1842, 1880, and 1919 (and, lets
> > face it, 2006).
> >
> > Everyone loses wars.
>
> Too much pot Ames old girl.....".....a list of 20th century wars that the
> English......"
>
> Afghanistan....2006? The Taliban have been routed. Even when ambushed
> deep in their territory, we've sent them back "in the same old way".
You don't keep up with current events, do you. The Taliban is in control
of MOST of Afghanistan. The US and the British are losing (as we are in
Iraq).
William Black
> "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > If "we" is the British then you are forgetting about the Roman
>> > Invasion, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, the Viking Invasions, the Norman
>> > Invasion, Hundren Years War, the American War of Independence, and the
>> > War of 1812.
>>
>> We lost the war of 1812??
>
> Yes, you did. And don't forget the WORLD CLASS ass-kicking you got in New
> Orleans!
Is that the battle fought after the peace treaty was signed?
In reality the US achieved none of their war objectives and the British
achieved all of theirs.
Now, tell me again how victory is established...
Pay careful attention to the reason The Whitehouse is called The Whitehouse
in your answer...
TOliver
"True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote ....
>
> Afghanistan....2006? The Taliban have been routed. Even when ambushed deep
> in their territory, we've sent them back "in the same old way".
>
Given the number and weaponry of US and NATO troops currently deployed and
the constant number and level of intensity of attacks by the "Taliban", et
al, against both US/NATO troops and all sorts of Afghan government and
military entities, plus the graphic inability of military forces to
eliminate or even substantially limit border crossing by groups and
individuals equipped with personal weapons and strongly hostile intent, as
2006 closes, 4 years + into the fray, I'm a bit less sanguine than you as
to the current status of the conflict and just what day to schedule for "VA
Day".
TMO
jJim McLaughlin
> On 9 Nov 2006 10:58:41 -0800, greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>
>>>Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>>>fired back this time!
>>
>>
>>Can the French handle a fight with Israel? They'll find out if they
>>shoot at Israeli warplanes.
>
>
> The French Navy could reduce Israel's ability to put planes in the air to
> zero in about 1 hour.
Only if the US keeps repairing the catapults and deck gear on the
deGaullle and the imitation carriers.
> The French military aren't Palestinian women and children.
>
Al Smith
The Israelis are damn good baby killers, as long as nobody is
shooting back at them.
Scotius
>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>
>Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>fired back this time!
If they interfere in Israel's business, the Israelis will fire
on them. If they don't get the hint, they'll have their french asses
handed to them.
>
>These Israelis have really been showing their true deviant nature
>lately with all these blatant cheap shots at peacekeeping forces.
>
>The "misunderstanding" or "accident" defense won't work anymore. It's
>becoming more and more obvious that the IDF is nothing more than a
>bunch of jew scum who think that they are the 'chosen ones' and can get
>away with any type of thuggery they want. They are really beginning to
>expose themselves through their arrogance and blatant misuse of
>military weaponry given to them by our own U.S. government.
greg...@yahoo.com
Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> > >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
> > >> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
> > >> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> > >>
> > >> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> > >> fired back this time!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > For a start they could blockade Israel.
>
> Not without US permission.
Actually, the French could put up a blockade, no doubt. But could they
keep it up? This is an interesting question that settles on a few
issues.
1) Would we go to Israel's aid? Remember that we were part of the
agreement to send this force, which is there to keep the peace. By
implication, this force can swat down anyone who disturbs the peace,
including Israel. No one said they could only fire at Hezbollah. Even
normally, it would be hard for us to put diplomatic pressure on France,
but under these circumstances, I doubt they would listen to us.
2) If we decided to help Israel, and we couldn't do it by diplomacy, we
would have to send ships. That would be very difficult politically,
since they have a mandate to be there, and we certainly would have no
mandate to threaten France. Also consider that it's France. Joking
aside, people here would be mortified at the idea.
3) If, against all odds, we challenged a blockade, would the French
back off, or face us on the water? I think they'd be pretty damned
angry, and uninclined to back off. So what happens then?
hunt...@earthlink.net
>Harold Burton wrote:
> Don't count. Losing wars means having someone else occupy your country,
> try your leaders for war crimes, and require you to pay reparations.
Not true at all. Check out ancient Egypt.
David E. Powell
Roedy Green wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 06:01:36 -0800, "instinc...@lycos.com"
> <instinc...@lycos.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
> who said :
>
> >Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> >like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> >fired back this time!
>
> The French are not downtrodden Palestinians who will put up with shit,
> content to make a few token killings in reprisal.
A few token rocketings, as in years of suicide bombings, killing
Olympic athletes, school kids, taking all the money meant to build a
place to live given them by charity and splitting it between terror
groups and their own leaders' private accounts while leaving their
people to live in squalor. Yeah, the Palestininans have had the benefit
of some great leadership. No sruprise that even with the attacks from
her neighbors over the years, Israel has built a modern, technically
advanced and civilized country, while the Palestinians remain led by
gangsters and criminals and not enjoying the benefits aid was supposed
to give them.
For the French
> there is "l'honeur".
If their government is concerned with that, they should do their job
that they swore to do and watch the border and disarm Hezbollah.
> If Israel attacks the French, they will smack the Israelis silly,
> perhaps using the reprisal as an excuse to wipe out their entire
> nuclear arsenal.
They do not have the means in theater to try. If they can't do much
about Hezbollah, they can do little about Israel either. Then again it
is also a question of will. Their minsters send angry statements out
because they know Israel might at least pay attention. Hezbollah will
not heed words.
> They will think, "How dare these lowly Israeli scum attack the
> superior, beneficent French there to help them out."
>
> The French military have some sophisticated home-grown weapons, and
> surely they ache for a chance to test them out.
Well, their foreign sales have fallen since the days of Saddam in the
1980s.
> I am pretty sure there would be riots in the streets if France did NOT
> give Israel a severe smack across the chops.
There would be, but only because they are already having them already.
IMO that should be the prime concern for the French government right
now.
> We have two haughty nations facing each other.
>
> If I were Israel, I would leave the French alone.
The best strategy, when the adversary is collapsing of their own
accord. The only problm is that the French are shielding terrorists who
have murdered innocent people before and have every intention of doing
so again.
Ken Chaddock
Argentine War over the Falklands...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>
>>>Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>>>fired back this time!
>>
>>
>>Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
>
>
> Don't be bloody silly.
>
> For a start they could blockade Israel.
>
> They've got a blue water navy, Israel hasn't...
>
> They're also a major manufacturer of tanks, combat aircraft and build
> nuclear powered submarines.
>
> To quote General Schwarzkopf "The Israelis are a bunch of third rate
> swaggerers who wouldn't last five minutes in a European war"
Which is probably 2 1/2 minutes longer than the French...
...Ken
Raghar
William Black wrote:
>
> To quote General Schwarzkopf "The Israelis are a bunch of third rate
> swaggerers who wouldn't last five minutes in a European war"
>
Nice quote, could you post a reference for it?
Ken Chaddock
> On 9 Nov 2006 10:58:41 -0800, greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>
>>>Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>>>fired back this time!
>>
>>
>>Can the French handle a fight with Israel? They'll find out if they
>>shoot at Israeli warplanes.
>
>
> The French Navy could reduce Israel's ability to put planes in the air to
> zero in about 1 hour.
> The French military aren't Palestinian women and children.
Well I guess we'd find out once and for all if those Crotale Naval
point defence missiles are any good...they'd have to take on both
Harpoon and Gabriel II & III's...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> "tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163102057.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Stephen Horgan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have a Commonwealth or Empire then why on Earth would you not
>>>let them help you in a war?
>>
>>"let them help you in a war" was usually translated by the IGS as
>>"spearheading the assaults and rear guarding the retreats."
>>
>
> There's a lot of legends about stuff like that, until you read a book and
> realise that it just isn't so.
>
> The best example is Gallipoli where the ANZAC troops went ashore after
> British troops landed.
Quite a disengeneous statement, the ANZAC troops went ashore of
completely different beaches...and stayed after the British withdrew...
...Ken
Andrew Swallow
> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-8013...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
>>>>> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
>>>>> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>>>
>>>>> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
>>>>> nearly
>>>>> fired back this time!
>>>>
>>>> Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
>>> Don't be bloody silly.
>>>
>>> For a start they could blockade Israel.
>>
>>
>> Not without US permission.
>
> France is a nuclear power who have taken time and trouble not to be part of
> the US extended defence umbrella.
>
> Why would they need US permission?
>
the Mediterranean. When at sea the US Navy can sink the French
fleet.
Andrew Swallow
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Amy Likes Pot!" <im42...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20061110090903.398$s...@newsreader.com...
> > "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > If "we" is the British then you are forgetting about the Roman
> >> > Invasion, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, the Viking Invasions, the Norman
> >> > Invasion, Hundren Years War, the American War of Independence, and the
> >> > War of 1812.
> >>
> >> We lost the war of 1812??
> >
> > Yes, you did. And don't forget the WORLD CLASS ass-kicking you got in New
> > Orleans!
>
> Is that the battle fought after the peace treaty was signed?
>
> In reality the US achieved none of their war objectives
and those were?
> and the British achieved all of theirs.
and those were?
Harold Burton
alohac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
> >
> French are cool and a lot smarter than americans.....How many French
> have died in violence lately?
Do the riots in France count?
The PretZel
> Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <20061109223905.368$m...@newsreader.com>,
>> im42...@hotmail.com (Amy Likes Pot!) wrote:
>>
>>> "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1163083672.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>>> The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Here's a list of the wars we lost;
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> TB
>>>
>>> Who would "we" be? If it is the US then you are forgetting about Viet
>>> Nam and also our ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
>>> (Not to mension Iraq and Afghanistan).
>>
>> Don't count. Losing wars means having someone else occupy your country,
>> try your leaders for war crimes, and require you to pay reparations.
>
> You're a republican, aren't you? Facts mean nothing to you. You just
> decide to change the definitions until you narrow it to your liking. You
> won the elections on Tuesday, too, didn't you???
Hell yes. Just watch FUX news. They'// tell you how Rightards pounded
to a pulp we Libs' fists with there faces.
--
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their
own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their
notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
- Thomas Jefferson
Soren Larsen
> Harold Burton wrote:
>> The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
Losing to the Italians in roman times was rather widespread.
>>
>> Hundred Years War - Mostly lost,
Must be a euphemism for total victory
Some battles lost, but war-aims achieved; the English got a
good kicking and lost influence and territory in France.
>> 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.
Euphemism for not daring to mess with France even though France
happily meddled in everybody's business.
>>
>> 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."
Mostly as a sideshow the French secured insurgent victory, just to
annoy the British.
>> 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.
Took the rest of Europe including Russia to hell and back just after
a revolution and a purge of the officer class
>> World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by
>> the United States.
Germany already on her knees when the onlookers decided to enter.
>> War in Indochina - Lost.
Imitated by another foreign power, who should have known better
based on the French example.
>> Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a
>> western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades
Currently being rerun by the same foreign power as above, who also
in this case should have known better based on the French example.
>> and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always
>> beat the French."
Battle of Poitier: Karl Martell (The Hammer) King of Franks
is the first to seriously kick muslim ass.
Widely regarded as the turning point in the Muslim advance toward
Western Europe.
>> War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history,
>> surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
Even though France has a large muslim population group with
all sorts of problems, there has been no serious muslim terrorist
attempts, since the 90's Algerian terrorists in France suffered an epidemic
of violent deaths.
Some of them even plotted to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower !
Who would have thought of that?
These terrorists also suffered violent deaths when GIGN stormed the
airplane. All commandos, crew, and passengers survived the 20 minute
firefight.
Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
The PretZel
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:45:26 -0000, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hal.i.burton-8013...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>> In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
>>>>>> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
>>>>>> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>>>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
>>>>>> fired back this time!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
>>>>
>>>> Don't be bloody silly.
>>>>
>>>> For a start they could blockade Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not without US permission.
>>
>> France is a nuclear power who have taken time and trouble not to be
>> part of the US extended defence umbrella.
>>
>> Why would they need US permission?
>
> They don't. The UN mandate allows UN forces in Lebanon the right to defend
> themselves without restriction. The French DEMANDED that right.
>
> Look how Israel interprets self defense and you can bet the French will
> interpret it EXACTLY the same way.
> Meaning any attack on their forces could result in full scale retaliation
> against Israeli forces.
>
> All of Europe would love to see Israel's wings clipped and it could reduce
> Muslim violence and terrorism right across Europe.
> A scrap with Israel is WIN WIN for France.
> They are just waiting for Israel to give them an excuse.
I agree. Do they have any Mirage's at their disposal?
The PretZel
Amy Likes Pot!
> "Amy Likes Pot!" <im42...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20061110090903.398$s...@newsreader.com...
> > "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > If "we" is the British then you are forgetting about the Roman
> >> > Invasion, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, the Viking Invasions, the Norman
> >> > Invasion, Hundren Years War, the American War of Independence, and
> >> > the War of 1812.
> >>
> >> We lost the war of 1812??
> >
> > Yes, you did. And don't forget the WORLD CLASS ass-kicking you got in
> > New Orleans!
>
> Is that the battle fought after the peace treaty was signed?
>
> In reality the US achieved none of their war objectives and the British
> achieved all of theirs.
The US war objective was to stop the enslavement of US citizens by the
British Navy and to stop the British from stealing our ships. That did
happen. And the fucking Lymies never tried their shit again (they knew to
stay out of our Civil War). By the 1910s they were begging for our help.
William Black
"Raghar" <Ragh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163190527....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
'Crusade' by Rick Atkinson, published by Houghton Mifflin in 1993.
William Black
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnaG_o9X-fsnY...@bt.com...
> To blockage Israel France would have to send its warships into
> the Mediterranean.
So?
When at sea the US Navy can sink the French
> fleet.
They'd need a bloody good reason, France being a member of NATO and all
that...
William Black
Stopping the impressments of American sailors, except that it had already
stopped...
Annexing Canada.
>
>
>> and the British achieved all of theirs.
>
>
> and those were?
Stopping the USA achieving their objectives...
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Amy Likes Pot!" <im42...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:20061110090903.398$s...@newsreader.com...
>> > "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > If "we" is the British then you are forgetting about the Roman
>> >> > Invasion, the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, the Viking Invasions, the Norman
>> >> > Invasion, Hundren Years War, the American War of Independence, and
>> >> > the War of 1812.
>> >>
>> >> We lost the war of 1812??
>> >
>> > Yes, you did. And don't forget the WORLD CLASS ass-kicking you got in
>> > New Orleans!
>>
>> Is that the battle fought after the peace treaty was signed?
>>
>> In reality the US achieved none of their war objectives and the British
>> achieved all of theirs.
>
> The US war objective was to stop the enslavement of US citizens by the
> British Navy and to stop the British from stealing our ships. That did
> happen.
They'd stopped doing it before the US started shooting.
Now I know your country isn't reputed for the brilliance of your
politicians, but you'd have thought they'd have bothered to check...
>> Now, tell me again how victory is established...
>>
>> Pay careful attention to the reason The Whitehouse is called The
>> Whitehouse in your answer...
Well?
Answer the question.
Harold Burton
im42...@hotmail.com (Amy Likes Pot!) wrote:
> Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <20061109223905.368$m...@newsreader.com>,
> > im42...@hotmail.com (Amy Likes Pot!) wrote:
> >
> > > "True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > "tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1163083672.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > > >> The French, actually fighting, now that's a joke!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 flower
> > > > >> pots as chapeaux.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 ever 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."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent
> > > > >> was also 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.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United
> > > > >> States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel
> > > > >> Song.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to
> > > > >> bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Algerian Rebellion - Lost. 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,
> > > > >> Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The same historian, no doubt English, would equally quick to point
> > > > > out that the Americans haven't won a war on their own since 1898.
> > > > > Now make up a list of 20th century wars that the English won
> > > > > without the Commonwealth/Empire.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's a list of the wars we lost;
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > TB
> > >
> > > Who would "we" be? If it is the US then you are forgetting about Viet
> > > Nam and also our ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
> > > (Not to mension Iraq and Afghanistan).
> >
> > Don't count. Losing wars means having someone else occupy your country,
> > try your leaders for war crimes, and require you to pay reparations.
>
> You're a republican, aren't you? Facts mean nothing to you.
You'e a DemocRAT, aren't you? You simply ignore inconvenient facts
presented to you.
David E. Powell
sam....@jametownnet.com wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:56:04 GMT, Roedy Green
> <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Nov 2006 06:01:36 -0800, "instinc...@lycos.com"
> >>like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> >>fired back this time!
> >
> >there is "l'honeur".
> >
> >perhaps using the reprisal as an excuse to wipe out their entire
> >nuclear arsenal.
> >
> >superior, beneficent French there to help them out."
> >
> >The French military have some sophisticated home-grown weapons, and
> >surely they ache for a chance to test them out.
>
> They are itching to test them. All they need is an excuse.
> Why do you think the French wanted changes to the UN mandate on Lebanon
> allowing them to defend themselves without restriction.
> They would LOVE a scrap with Israel. In fact I'm sure they are even
> planning for one.
They would be fighting the wrogn enemy. Israel does not have allies
that wish for France to cease to exist as a state entity. Hezbollah
does.
Harold Burton
greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> > > >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=200
> > > >> 6-11
> > > >> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLo
> > > >> c=Ho
> > > >> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> > > >>
> > > >> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> > > >> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
> > > >> nearly
> > > >> fired back this time!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
> > >
> > > Don't be bloody silly.
> > >
> > > For a start they could blockade Israel.
> >
> > Not without US permission.
>
> Actually, the French could put up a blockade, no doubt. But could they
> keep it up?
Not if we chose to sail through it.
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-8013...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> >> >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006
> >> >> -11
> >> >> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc
> >> >> =Ho
> >> >> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> >> >>
> >> >> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> >> >> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
> >> >> nearly
> >> >> fired back this time!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
> >>
> >> Don't be bloody silly.
> >>
> >> For a start they could blockade Israel.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not without US permission.
>
> France is a nuclear power who have taken time and trouble not to be part of
> the US extended defence umbrella.
>
> Why would they need US permission?
Because we could ignore their silly blockade.
William Black
The insurance companies would put the rates sky high.
No ship would sail.
Would the US government underwrite the shipments?
William Black
>> Actually, the French could put up a blockade, no doubt. But could they
>> keep it up?
>
>
> Not if we chose to sail through it.
Who cares what the US navy does?
The insurance companies would put the rates sky high.
No merchant ship would sail.
Gus Richardson
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163196278.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Absolutely.
>> They are itching to test them. All they need is an excuse.
>> Why do you think the French wanted changes to the UN mandate on Lebanon
>> allowing them to defend themselves without restriction.
>> They would LOVE a scrap with Israel. In fact I'm sure they are even
>> planning for one.
>
> They would be fighting the wrogn enemy. Israel does not have allies
> that wish for France to cease to exist as a state entity. Hezbollah
> does.
>
I'm a realist. Israel must be tamed, it's enemies must be appeased.
I'm not one of those who thinks Israel has no right to exist but if it
didn't the world would be a MUCH better, more prosperous, and safer place.
I would like to see Israel forced back into it original borders and forced
to negotiate with it's neighbors AFTER that.
Morton Davis
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163196278.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
To such as he - Israel is the enemy.
john smith ( nom de guerre )
Harold Burton skrev:
> >
> > You're a republican, aren't you? Facts mean nothing to you.
>
>
> You'e a DemocRAT, aren't you? You simply ignore inconvenient facts
> presented to you.
you're here in the uk.politics.misc groups too???
*sigh*
Soren Larsen
> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>
>>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
>>> nearly fired back this time!
>>
>>
>
> Don't be bloody silly.
>
> For a start they could blockade Israel.
No need to be that dramatic.
Israel trades with the EU as if they were a member.
Shoot at French and German forces and you could see that
status evaporate rather quickly.
"EU-Israel trade is increasing in importance. In the last 20 years, the
share of EU-Israel trade in their commerce with the rest of the world has
almost doubled. In terms of total trade, the EU is Israel's major partner.
Israel ranks as EU's 23rd largest trading partner."
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/israel/index_en.htm
It would hurt Israel a lot more than it would hurt the EU.
Kerryn Offord
> tomcervo wrote:
>> Harold Burton wrote:
<SNIP>
>> The same historian, no doubt English, would equally quick to point out
>> that the Americans haven't won a war on their own since 1898.
>> Now make up a list of 20th century wars that the English won without
>> the Commonwealth/Empire.
>
>
> ...Ken
Well.. NZ contributed RNZN ships to let RN ships divert to the
Falklands. I guess Oz did likewise
William Black
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4555...@clear.net.nz...
You really would have to find some sort of circumstances when Mother
Thatcher would let British soldiers die in order to fulfil some obscure
treaty obligation.
It's like the US releasing the Sidewinders, they were already on UK
inventory and nobody anywhere has ever suggested that they wouldn't have
'gone South' if the US refused to release stocks.
Morton Davis
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:455599d7$0$13977$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
> William Black wrote:
> > <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> >>>
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-
09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home
-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> >>>
> >>> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> >>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
> >>> nearly fired back this time!
> >>
> >>
> >> Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
> >
> > Don't be bloody silly.
> >
> > For a start they could blockade Israel.
>
>
> No need to be that dramatic.
>
> Israel trades with the EU as if they were a member.
>
> Shoot at French and German forces and you could see that
> status evaporate rather quickly.
>
>
to them.
William Black
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:ZPk5h.1059083$084.495210@attbi_s22...
Who'd believe it?
They'd scream blue murder about 'trigger happy Israelis' and the world would
believe it.
TOliver
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ...
>
> "Kerryn Offord" <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:4555...@clear.net.nz...
>> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>>> tomcervo wrote:
>>>> Harold Burton wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> The same historian, no doubt English, would equally quick to point out
>>>> that the Americans haven't won a war on their own since 1898.
>>>> Now make up a list of 20th century wars that the English won without
>>>> the Commonwealth/Empire.
>>>
>>> Argentine War over the Falklands...
>>>
>>> ...Ken
>>
>> Well.. NZ contributed RNZN ships to let RN ships divert to the Falklands.
>> I guess Oz did likewise
>
> You really would have to find some sort of circumstances when Mother
> Thatcher would let British soldiers die in order to fulfil some obscure
> treaty obligation.
>
> It's like the US releasing the Sidewinders, they were already on UK
> inventory and nobody anywhere has ever suggested that they wouldn't have
> 'gone South' if the US refused to release stocks.
>
Well, we'll leave out the airborne INTEL as "classified", but would you like
an accounting od the USAF C-141 logistics flights into the UK's "advanced
island bases". Apparently, ATC in the South Atlantic stayed pretty busy
with US birds coming with a variety of LOGREQs the depleted and diminsished
RAF's few remaining birds couldn't handle. While the UK would have
certainly won without the US, the various time factors might have made even
a "close run thing" closer.
TMO
TMO
Ken Chaddock
>>
>>> In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>>>
>>>> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
>>>>>> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they
>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>> fired back this time!
>>>>> Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
>>>>
>>>> Don't be bloody silly.
>>>>
>>>> For a start they could blockade Israel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not without US permission.
>> France is a nuclear power who have taken time and trouble not to be
>> part of the US extended defence umbrella.
>>
>> Why would they need US permission?
>>
> To blockage Israel France would have to send its warships into
> the Mediterranean. When at sea the US Navy can sink the French
> fleet.
> Andrew Swallow
On top of that the Israeli fleet was built to counter just such a
blockade...but by a far superior naval power, the Soviet Union and her
Arab allies...the French just might end up regretting that they sold the
Israelis those subs...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
It's only "win-win" for the French is they "win"...it the Israelis
kicked their asses they would lose big time...
...Ken
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Ya mean like in WWII?
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-131F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> >> Actually, the French could put up a blockade, no doubt. But could they
> >> keep it up?
> >
> >
> > Not if we chose to sail through it.
>
> Who cares what the US navy does?
>
> The insurance companies would put the rates sky high.
>
> No merchant ship would sail.
Ya mean like in WWII?
deem...@aol.com
sam....@jametownnet.com wrote:> >> In article <eivv6k$lg8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> >> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1163098721....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > instinc...@lycos.com wrote:
> >> > >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11
> >> > >> -09T102858Z_01_L09370289_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-FRANCE-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=Ho
> >> > >> me-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Again these Israeli scum tried to threaten peacekeeping forces much
> >> > >> like they did to German forces, but the French soldiers say they nearly
> >> > >> fired back this time!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Can the French handle a fight with Israel?
> >> >
> >> > Don't be bloody silly.
> >> >
> >> > For a start they could blockade Israel.
> >>
> >> Not without US permission.
> >
> >issues.
> >
> I doubt they would do that. I expect a short battle, numbered in hours,
> with Israel taking damage to military facilities.
> The expected side effect of such a 'war' would be reduced Muslim violence
> and terrorism in Europe.
Maybe you could dig up Chamberlain....he could make a lasting peace
deal with the Muslims.
> I think all of Europe would love to bloody the nose of the Israeli bully
> for that reason alone.
Might want to watch the bully.....he can bite you on the ass.
> I suspect the European contingent of the Lebanon peacekeeping force is
> looking for excuses to take Israel on.
Then they are idiots.
>
>
> >1) Would we go to Israel's aid? Remember that we were part of the
> >agreement to send this force, which is there to keep the peace. By
> >implication, this force can swat down anyone who disturbs the peace,
> >including Israel. No one said they could only fire at Hezbollah. Even
> >normally, it would be hard for us to put diplomatic pressure on France,
> >but under these circumstances, I doubt they would listen to us.
> >
> >2) If we decided to help Israel, and we couldn't do it by diplomacy, we
> >would have to send ships. That would be very difficult politically,
> >since they have a mandate to be there, and we certainly would have no
> >mandate to threaten France. Also consider that it's France. Joking
> >aside, people here would be mortified at the idea.
> >
> >3) If, against all odds, we challenged a blockade, would the French
> >back off, or face us on the water? I think they'd be pretty damned
> >angry, and uninclined to back off. So what happens then?
William Black
In WWII a major power (Great Britain) underwrote the shipments and the
ships.
Who is going to do that for Israel?
Jack Linthicum
What submarines?
Paul J. Adam
Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> writes
>Ken Chaddock wrote:
>> On top of that the Israeli fleet was built to counter just such a
>> blockade...but by a far superior naval power, the Soviet Union and her
>> Arab allies...the French just might end up regretting that they sold the
>> Israelis those subs...
>
The French sold Israel some Daphne-class SSKs - which tells you how long
ago that was - and they're long ago decommissioned.
The Israelis currently operate three Dolphin-class boats - German design
and US construction.
--
Scientific results cannot be used efficiently by soldiers who have no
understanding of them, and scientists cannot produce results useful for
warfare without an understanding of the operations.
- Dr. Theodore Von Karman
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Ken Chaddock
Sorry, my mistake, I read Dauphine where it was written Dolphin...my
mistake...but the French might still regret an attempt at a
blockade...they paid a lot of money for the Charles De Gaul...they
wouldn't be happy if she was on the bottom of the Med...
...Ken
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Take a wild guess.
William Black
I doubt the USA would.
Not if France had a legitimate grievance.
I also doubt that the US would start hostilities against a European nuclear
power over one of their clients belligerent actions.
No-one is going to blow up the world over the Middle East.
Harold Burton
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-C926...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <ej6sjv$oqa$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Why would they need US permission?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because we could ignore their silly blockade.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The insurance companies would put the rates sky high.
> >> >>
> >> >> No ship would sail.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ya mean like in WWII?
> >>
> >> In WWII a major power (Great Britain) underwrote the shipments and the
> >> ships.
> >>
> >> Who is going to do that for Israel?
> >
> >
> > Take a wild guess.
>
> I doubt the USA would.
>
> Not if France had a legitimate grievance.
>
Big "if".
greg...@yahoo.com
pigdos wrote:
> I know an former Israeli commando ('72' Yom Kippur War) who doesn't think
> much of the US military either.
Neither did Tojo. Kruschev did, thank God.
Really, would this Israeli commando have spoken such rot about the US
military if you'd been a Navy Seal?
> His estimation is basically the US never
> lost because it had the overwhelming advantage
Well that is the idea, isn't it? Is it better to take battlefield at a
disadvantage?
> and never won a battle in
> which the odds were heavily stacked against it
Bastogne? Pusan? The entire friggin American Revolution? The odds
were a tad skewed in that one, don't you think?
Jack Linthicum
pigdos wrote:
> I know an former Israeli commando ('72' Yom Kippur War) who doesn't think
> lost because it had the overwhelming advantage and never won a battle in
> which the odds were heavily stacked against it (unlike the Israeli
> military).
>
Top posting bad.
I presume, then, that the latest show by the Israeli army was done with
a sporting gesture of not overwhelming the Hezbollah?
Dan
Starshiy Nemo wrote:
> >
> Traitors?? They fought too in WWI WWII and so on ....
> So your comment is insultant for them
> And I appreciate their engagement
>
>
> PS : were did you or your fathers fought for what you call freedom?
> Maybe not far from your asshole
If your country is at war and you support the other side you are a
Traitor simple,
If you have dual citizenship i.e. Israel France or Israel US then you
may have to make your mind up which is your primary loyalty and
actively support one against the other or you keep your head down and
hope the problem blows over before you are forced to make a choice.
If what you really mean is French citizens who happen to be Jewish well
sorry they are French and would be expected to support France or would
be rightly considered traitors.
In terms of any real fighting between France in support of UNIFIL and
Israel, I simply do not believe it would get to that as both sets of
politicians would find a way of avoiding it, however if you really
take it to the logical conclusion well the other contributing countries
would back France, so you have Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Greece,
Turkey, and the British bases on Cyprus available on one side and even
the US would soon become isolated in the Med if they suddenly lost
overflight and refuelling rights.
As I say not a beleivable option but if it got to the point it is
Israel which would have to back down.
jb
<greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163445314.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > and never won a battle in
> > which the odds were heavily stacked against it
>
>
> Bastogne? Pusan? The entire friggin American Revolution?
First of all it never was the American Revolution.
It was a Civil war between the British Crown Forces and the British
colonists.
The odds
> were a tad skewed in that one, don't you think?
Most definitely, the British Colonists were on home ground whilst the
British Crown Forces were three thousand miles from home and had also to
contend with The French forces of General Lafayette.
The British Colonist would be mortified to be called American, so much so
that despite being on the winning side, quite literally thousands of them
emigrated into Canada or back to the British Isles.
The states of Maine and New Hampshire were almost empty of human life for
many years.
The people who were rebuffed in their attempts to leave the New USA by the
Canadians and the British Crown, became your ancestors.
Do not ever try to compare yourselves and your contempories with those brave
Men and Women who forged a great country out of the wilderness.
You lack the moral fibre!