Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

France Stands Firm?

35 posts in this topic

reminds me rather of the old joke about America wanting to make up for being late for the last two wars by being early for the next; only now France under its current dynamic leadership seems to be eager to take up the cudgels of Sabre-Rattler-in-Chief now that Mr. O's dropped the ball. America's Top Diplomat™ John Kerry will be pleased with them.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The French rattle a darned good sabre, and no mistake - not much use though when they actually have to fight somebody with it!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems an odd move on their part - at least to me. I am glad that someone decided to stop the rush to a stupid agreement. I expect it will only delay the inevitable but who knows? Maybe the congress can throw up a roadblock or two as well. Bibi no longer has any scrap of evidence that Obama is being truthful abut his no Iranian nukes pledge. It will be an interesting meeting of Israel's government today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just happened upon this quote just now, which seems rather fitting:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary".

~ H. L. Mencken, 1920.

True to be sure - but it doesn't provoke a sane reader to believe that NO dangers exist in the world - they have to look to their own arrogance for those assurances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But each new danger is always so much more worse than any that's gone before, isn't it. Now that they've been cheated out of their war in Syria, the old menace has been taken down from the shelf and dusted off again. But since the People have begun to show that they don't believe this constant reiteration of Danger as easily as they used to, the old Hobgoblin has had to be given a facelift and polished up to make it even more scary. And now America's Top Diplomat has a new best friend that's acting all tough and growling obediently to order. The world, however, and particularly its Bad Guys, find it hard to take seriously a poodle that's growling at them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True to be sure - but it doesn't provoke a sane reader to believe that NO dangers exist in the world - they have to look to their own arrogance for those assurances.

Danger has only heightened through attempts to quell such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danger has only heightened through attempts to quell such.

Now THAT I can agree with. Poses quite the quandary though. When real danger exists and it is ignored then the outcome can be very serious. 911 is an example of that. If something similar or worse happens then everyone will be singing their same tired old tunes but those who get caught in the destruction won't be around to hear them.

Iran finances and controls terror cells around the world. It is the primary means of support for Hezbollah and has been known to support the Hamas as well. Regardless the semantic games played with A'jad's words this nation has called for the destruction of a member state of the UN. When they finally assemble their weapon it will create a very tense and more dangerous situation in the most volatile region on the planet. Those are facts that no amount of dismissive rhetoric will change. I'm happy that the French - for whatever reason - decided to put the breaks on a ridiculous surrender to the mullahs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The French rattle a darned good sabre, and no mistake - not much use though when they actually have to fight somebody with it!

They create a big cloud of dust when they leg it..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT I can agree with. Poses quite the quandary though. When real danger exists and it is ignored then the outcome can be very serious. 911 is an example of that. If something similar or worse happens then everyone will be singing their same tired old tunes but those who get caught in the destruction won't be around to hear them.

Iran finances and controls terror cells around the world. It is the primary means of support for Hezbollah and has been known to support the Hamas as well. Regardless the semantic games played with A'jad's words this nation has called for the destruction of a member state of the UN. When they finally assemble their weapon it will create a very tense and more dangerous situation in the most volatile region on the planet. Those are facts that no amount of dismissive rhetoric will change.

So did Iraq, according to the former liar- I mean, president. Did you believe that it did, or did you know that the former President was lying? Does that mean that the current President must be telling the truth? Do you believe for one moment that France cares so much about the danger to peace loving little Israel that it 's decided that this issue is worth making a stand over, or is it doing just what Tony Bliar did and wants to be America's Number One Best Friend?

i expect this'll just be dismissed as rhetoric. Whereas all the emotion with which you always talk about the existential threat to Israel never is, of course. That' just stating facts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to jump in on this topic, as someone who has local knowledge of France.

This behavior from France is not really new in the last ten years, as the French state has been showing more and more its submission to the sionist lobby and pressure/interest groups.

Whether through the laws that increasingly prevent any criticism of Israel or sionism (allowing them to be banded in with the regrettable laws of "antisemitism" and "negationism"),

the high level protection afforded to leading members of a certain community over all other French people (from criminal prosecution for instance),

the increasingly aggressive rhetoric of state officials against people and countries with which the French had a special relationship for so long (Middle-East, Arab world in general),

and the clear impact of sionist elites on government actions (France went to war with Libya after the insistance and "personal visit" to Sarkozy by the sionist "french" "philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy, who "unfortunately" didn't manage to reiterate his success for Syria - though he tries his damndest),

what we see here is just another step in the increased subservience of the French state to the sionist elites. The fact that the US is perhaps beginning to awaken to the reality that their "close friendship" with sionism won't always be for mutual interest leads Israel to demand more efforts from others. It could also be that after feeling resistance from the US public on the latest warmongering efforts, the government can't take it's usual tough guy stance, but is happy to let France come in and fill the role (US side didn'T really seem that upset about that...).

Either way, I wouldn't call the French position here "brave" in any way. Bravery has left that nation'S head for a while now, and only personal interests, nepotism and favoritism seem to be the rule (ask all those who thought there would be change after we replaced the Right with the Left. Same pockets being serviced, doesn't really matter...).

So yeah, France might "care" more than others about Israel in this matter, in the way that a kid might "care" about getting his bully classmate the answers to tomorrow's test because his Daddy's rich and he lets'im come over and play with his toys every now and then. Nothing to be proud of really, quite the shame in fact.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did Iraq, according to the former liar- I mean, president. Did you believe that it did, or did you know that the former President was lying? Does that mean that the current President must be telling the truth? Do you believe for one moment that France cares so much about the danger to peace loving little Israel that it 's decided that this issue is worth making a stand over, or is it doing just what Tony Bliar did and wants to be America's Number One Best Friend?

i expect this'll just be dismissed as rhetoric. Whereas all the emotion with which you always talk about the existential threat to Israel never is, of course. That' just stating facts.

So did Iraq? What are you talking about? My points were clear enough. I said nothing about supporting the invasion of Iraq. I did not say Iran had a bomb I said WHEN they decide to assemble (foregone conclusion now and unstoppable) I said Iran is KNOWN to support terror. I understand the points you make and we completely disagree most of the time. You apparently believe Iran is NOT a threat to kill indiscriminately in western countries, that it does not support terror groups and is no more dangerous controlling nukes than any other country. Duly noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French military victories? Did you mean French military defeats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The French rattle a darned good sabre, and no mistake - not much use though when they actually have to fight somebody with it!

No worries they will surrender before they start.I've heard that the Italian tanks (1 forward and 3 reverse gears) have just reached Iraq.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French military victories? Did you mean French military defeats?

I wish it was true but surprisingly France is one of Europes most successful military powers.

Out of 168 major European wars.

Won 109

Drawn 10

lost 49

Well if you believe Wikipedia,personally I hope they got it wrong..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seemed to go pretty well for them until 1814, after that it all started to go downhill really. Ok, 1812 was a bit of a bum year as well. technically, they were on the winning side in 1918, of course, but I doubt if they'd have been able to do it without help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The French had little (numerical) help from 1914-1918, and saw the "bloom" of their youth vaporized and/or dissolved into muck.

The French fought valiantly, with only a few mutinies, in WWI.

The utter destruction of a generation of men (of millions) led to a profound fear of martial engagement again; hence the Maginot Line and its inanity ("go around it!"), the production of a front-line tank by 1938 which nobody wanted to wield in anger, and an abysmal (and continuing) Fifth Column of traitors.

If you think the French are a bunch of cowardly surrender-monkeys---yeah, go say that to a Legionnaire.

Vive l'homme Marquis de Lafayette. Were it not for him, we Americans would be speaking English with a decided British accent.

Alors! (Thanks to my wife Fifi, and her black stockings, for some translation assistance with this post).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife is French Canadian so I do have to be careful when I'm bashing the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the French are a bunch of cowardly surrender-monkeys---yeah, go say that to a Legionnaire.

Whose OR's are mostly non-French.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of 168 major European wars.

Because 167 just wasn't enough

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The French had little (numerical) help from 1914-1918, and saw the "bloom" of their youth vaporized and/or dissolved into muck.

The French fought valiantly, with only a few mutinies, in WWI.

The utter destruction of a generation of men (of millions) led to a profound fear of martial engagement again; hence the Maginot Line and its inanity ("go around it!"), the production of a front-line tank by 1938 which nobody wanted to wield in anger, and an abysmal (and continuing) Fifth Column of traitors.

If you think the French are a bunch of cowardly surrender-monkeys---yeah, go say that to a Legionnaire.

Vive l'homme Marquis de Lafayette. Were it not for him, we Americans would be speaking English with a decided British accent.

Alors! (Thanks to my wife Fifi, and her black stockings, for some translation assistance with this post).

70 % of Legionaires are not French. My shipmates rescued 3 from the docks in Cape Town,2 Americans 1 Australian they jumped overboard as their ship was leaving, the Officers were shooting at them in the water, and 3 didn't survive.We brought the lucky ones back to England,and in due course they went back to their Countries.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to love the French.They have to Croque Madame and im hungry now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70 % of Legionaires are not French. My shipmates rescued 3 from the docks in Cape Town,2 Americans 1 Australian they jumped overboard as their ship was leaving, the Officers were shooting at them in the water, and 3 didn't survive.We brought the lucky ones back to England,and in due course they went back to their Countries.

Then ignore that part of my post, and just describe how cowardly and surrender-ready the French Army was in World War One. My point was that that insane sacrifice of so many men, in the flower of their youth, led to a national mood of non-engagement by the late 1930's. There is usually a reason for every stereotype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Vietnamese have an antipathy for the French that considerably exceeds that towards the Japanese or Americans. I think it has to do with the arrogant and stupid way they went about colonial rule, arbitrarily deciding what is "best" for the Vietnamese. In some cases, as with the alphabet, they were right. In others, as with their religion, which few of them really believed, they were very wrong. The main thing I dislike the most was how they insisted in trying to reestablish their colony after the Japanese were defeated, when local government had already been established and how they used their cooperation in NATO to bludgeon the Americans into going along, with no reference at all to Vietnamese wishes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.