the year when North America almost changed

[Xcalibur]

1995, october

The first time I have the right to vote

Referendum: Are we to be independant from Canada...

Yes: 49,6%

No 50,4%

Still, Québec remains the only "conquered" nation still not independant in our days.

That dream is over now, it will never happen, it won't happen

But there's something that a few people knows.

Jacques Parizeau, our prime minister back then signed a secret treaty with France BEFORE the vote.

The treaty was that IF the "yes" was voted, FRENCH soldiers from FRANCE were to come and assure our integrity, our freedom, our frontieres, you get the idea.


Just a small "what if"... what do you think would happened if we were independant, France would had get their colony back again? we would associate with the us? back with Canada?

Sounded not that bad when i read it, sorry for the confusion



[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[GSLeloo]

Um.. that hurt my head.

[Weedmage Princess]

Just so I can be sure I am understanding this..you said the FRENCH MILITARY were supposed to go there?

[Vesi]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
1995, october

The first time I have the right to vote

Referendum: Are we to be independant from Canada...

Yes: 49,6%

No 50,4%

Still, Québec remains the only "conquered" nation still not independant in our days.

That dream is over now, it will never happen, it won't happen

But there's something that a few people knows.

Jacques Parizeau, our prime minister back then, signed just before the vote a treaty with France that IF the "yes" was to win, FRENCH soldiers were to come here and assure our integrity, our choice and therefore, our new nation.

Just a small "what if"... what do you think would happened if we were independant, France would had get their colony back again? we would associate with the us? back with Canada? so many choices

First I thought, majority ruled. Then I thought about our popular vote and the electoral votes. Then I got to thinking what Gore would have done with Iraq. Umm... where were we?

I honestly don't know about Québec. I feel, not living there, that I can't give a really good opinion. Can we give song titles that have to do with Canada? I do better with those. (just kidding but also not mocking the subject) I'm just not well informed on Canada.

Vesi

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

Still, Québec remains the only "conquered" nation still not independant in our days.

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

I dunno, ask the Aztecs about that, or the Incas, or perhaps the Mayans, or the Apache, or the Navaho......

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Xcalibur

Still, Québec remains the only "conquered" nation still not independant in our days.

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

I dunno, ask the Aztecs about that, or the Incas, or perhaps the Mayans, or the Apache, or the Navaho......

They were assimilated

Was talking more of Bresil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Haitie, etc etc etc, etc

[Skirmisher]

Assimilated?

Tell you what. Go and ask any of those indigenous cultures just how "assimilated" they think they are.

They were crushed and not until perhaps the last fifty years has there been an organized attempt to save what little remains.

When less than one third of your original population remains, thats not assimilation my friend, thats near genocide, intended or not.

[imported_Kranar]

<< But there's something that a few people knows. >>

This isn't like some big secret or anything.

I sometimes wish Quebec did seperate. Many big time corporations moved out of Quebec and to Ontario and the referendum devastated Quebec's economy. Anyhow, it's a mistake Quebec is unlikely to ever make again.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Assimilated?

Tell you what. Go and ask any of those indigenous cultures just how "assimilated" they think they are.

They were crushed and not until perhaps the last fifty years has there been an organized attempt to save what little remains.

When less than one third of your original population remains, thats not assimilation my friend, thats near genocide, intended or not.

Still Mexico is independant, part Spanish part Aztecs, but indepedant still.

Same goes with the Mayans, Incas..

Kranar: I said before that we won't get any chance, i retire that and say we will, when all quebecois alike will be bored of the plq and bring the pq who's moto will be : we told you, now follow us

[longshot]

Frace has an Army?

[Weedmage Princess]

LOL Longshot

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by longshot
Frace has an Army?

Don't remember any other modern country that got an empire as big as Napoleon had ;)

Yeah they sux since then, still

[Artha]

French soldiers to protect you?

The jokes...must...suppress...jokes...

[i remember halloween]

who cares

[Chadj]

Errr... last i checked.... quebec was willingly in with canada... in no way conquered.. but meh, maybe all the books lie completely and utterly :)

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Chadj
Errr... last i checked.... quebec was willingly in with canada... in no way conquered.. but meh, maybe all the books lie completely and utterly :)

OK, well I didn't check and will admit my knowledge of Canadian history is sorely lacking.

I would really appreciate if either Kranr or Excalibur, or anyone else with such information at hand could please expand upon the whole conquered Quebec statment so I may be enlightened?

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
who cares

Since you don't, no need to express it

same goes for Artha
:bouncy:

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Chadj
Errr... last i checked.... quebec was willingly in with canada... in no way conquered.. but meh, maybe all the books lie completely and utterly :)

"willingly" for you means what?

how much percentage needed?

50%+1 ? 75%? 100%

For me it means close to the majority

1980: 40% disagreed
1995: 49,6% disagreed
2003: still close to 35% disagreed

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Chadj
Errr... last i checked.... quebec was willingly in with canada... in no way conquered.. but meh, maybe all the books lie completely and utterly :)

OK, well I didn't check and will admit my knowledge of Canadian history is sorely lacking.

I would really appreciate if either Kranr or Excalibur, or anyone else with such information at hand could please expand upon the whole conquered Quebec statment so I may be enlightened?

1759: War on the "plaine d'abraham" (5 minutes from my home) Wolfe (uk) and Montcalm (france) both dies. Uk wins

1763: After the defeat of France and the traity of Paris, U.K. get the possession of the Nouvelle-France territory and Quebec is named as a province.

1791: loyalist from the united-states flees
That creates 2 "provinces"
Bas-Canada (low) (québec as its capital) majority of French speaking

Haut-Canada (high) (Ontario nowadays)

1837: governments asks real power (from the uk)

Same year, french canadian (québécois) revolt, lead by Louis-Joseph Papineau

Until the begining of the XXth century, only English people IN QUEBEC held post of power. They were the judges, the businessmen, the officers, the administrators, etc.

I could exagerate and say that we have the same problem the US had when they wanted independance, but we were conquered in 1759-63, not you

[Skirmisher]

Excalibur,

I see what you mean by conquered now but that is far in the past.

Do not go backward and start wanting to be like croats and serbs or something.

The future is going to be formed by larger and larger countries/unions/what have you. Just look at the EU.

There will likely never be a 100% consensus in any country. NYC has Staten Island for example that nearly every time a major election comes up is thinking about seceding from NYC.

Ask the southern US about being conquered also by the way. The term they use for the US Civil War is I believe "The War of Northern Aggresion".

Do you think they were not conquered?
They would beg to differ.

But that is the past and the US like any other country has its own internal disagreements but gathers its strength from the whole.

Move forward friend, not back.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by longshot
Frace has an Army?

shut up

facts about France's army, UK's army and USA's army

France:

they possess ELEVEN AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Their greatest, the "Charles De Gaulles" is nucleair and comparable to any of your aircraft carrier.

10 others
CV
CLEMENCEAU
FOCH
ARROMANCHES
BOIS-BELLEAU
LA FAYETTE
DIXMUDE
JOFFRE
PAINLEVE
BEARN

132 400 militaires d'active :
15 500 officiers de carrière et sous contrat
48 000 sous-officiers de carrière et sous contrat
68 900 militaires du rang sous contrat
65 500 Engagés volontaires de l'armée de terre (EVAT)
3400 Volontaires de l'armée de terre (VDAT)
11 300 réservistes
29 500 personnels civils
1200 fonctionnaires de catégorie A
3900 fonctionnaires de catégorie B
10 600 fonctionnaires de catégorie C
12 800 ouvriers

------------------------------------------------------


UK

uk possess 3 AIR CRAFTS CARRIERS

Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal

1 July 2001 Thousands
Total UK Based Personnel 304.0
Service 205.7
Civilian 98.4

Naval Service 42.4
Officers 7.8

Other Ranks 34.7

Army 109.5
Officers 95.6
Other Ranks 13.9

Royal Air Force 53.7
Officers 11.0
Other Rank 42.7

UK based Civilians 98.4
Non-industrial 73.8
Industrial 24.5


Source: DASA (Civilian) and DASA (Tri-Service)
Page Modified: 16th October 2001


USA

USA posses 12 IN service

Kitty Hawk
Constellation
Enterprise
John F. Kennedy
Nimitz
Dwigt D Eisenhower
Carl Vinson
Thedore Rooselvet
Abraham Lincoln
Georges Washington
John C. Stennis
Harry S. Truman

And 2 being build (ronald reagan and Georges H. W. Bush)




[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Artha]

Another fact about frances army:

They have never won a war.

Except the french revolution...but that doesn't count.

[imported_Kranar]

Artha, it's obvious you know little history and yeah it's cool to make fun of France, but now you're coming off like you're actually ignorant.

[Artha]

Click me (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokefrenchmilitaryhistory.htm)

[imported_Kranar]

Wow Artha, I am ever so glad to now know that the source of your ignorance stems from a website that is about cracking JOKES of all things.

That's almost as sad as Edgeleaf believing a joke on SNL that the French renamed American cheese to idiot cheese.

[Artha]

They did!? Those dirty french bastards!

[Xcalibur]

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.

-------
France was not united back then, and that italian and his friends conquered UK too, remember? (and germany, and so on)
--------

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

???
They won


Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

False, Italians = romans
Romans screwed the greeks more than 2 times, they screwed the english more than 2 times, etc


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".

1763: Traité de Paris closes all French threat and opened the West for the English

1763-73, Colonies doesn't agreed and likes the "monopoles" of UK and revolts

1774: first continental congres in Philadephie

1775: Boston blocus cause the war of independance, MARQUED BY THE ALLIANCE WITH FRANCE

4 july 1776: Congres proclam independance.


1783: peace of Paris recognize the Republique of United-States

Means without France, no USA back then

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

Same goes with all revolution, stupid

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.

Napoleon PWNED the germans, the russians and so on, only got beated with ALL their unity


War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Did the us won back then?? my memory is playing with me

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 Eskimos.

As the UK, France lost all their colonies, simply as that

[Jack]

The Real Facts about France's Aircraft Carriers.

France:

they possess ELEVEN AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Charles De Gaulle: Built in 1994 and commissioned in 2000. It has had it's share of problems in sea trials. First the flight deck was four meters too short to handle all aircraft types planned. This has been corrected. Since then, durring long distance trials it shattered a propeller, again delaying things. It is now in service. It is smaller than US carriers, and slower, however it is a truly modern aircraft carrier.

10 others
CV
CLEMENCEAU: Built in 1957, upgraded in 1978, again in 1985, 1988, 1999, and 1993. Carries a total of 35 aircraft, including the F-8 Crusader, an ealy Viet Nam War era US fighter, purchased by France.

FOCH: Commissioned after a six year long build cycle in 1963. This was France's first modern aircraft carrier. Posesses an angled flight deck and two steam catupults. On 15 November 2001 the Foch was decomissioned, and sold to Brazil.

ARROMANCHES: Originally named Collosus, and built in 1943 by Brittain, this is a scaled down version of the Illustrious class Aircraft Carrier. In 1946 it was loaned to France, and renamed Arromanches. Decomissioned in 1974, and scrapped in 1978.

BOIS-BELLEAU: Formerly the USS Belleau Wood, and built in 1943. It was returned to the US in 1960 and scrapped in 1962.

LA FAYETTE: Fomerly the USS Langley, Built and commissioned into the US Navy in 1943 purchased by France from the US in 1953, decommissioned in 1963 and retruned to the US where it was scrapped.

DIXMUDE: Formerly the HMS Biter, built in the US for Brittain, and commissioned in 1942. Returned to the US in 1945, and then loaned to France. In 1960 the Dixmude was returned to the US, and subsequently sunk as a test target in 1966.

JOFFRE: Keel was laid down in 1938. Construction proved too difficult and costly, and was abaondoned before completion in 1940.

PAINLEVE: Same class as the Joffre, keel was set to be laid in 1940, but construction was cancelled before this could happen.

BEARN: An early experimental Aircraft Carrier, this was built on the hull of a Normandy class Battleship in 1927. Served as a ferry ship for US Planes across the Atlanitc durring WWII, and decomissioned in 1958.

Edited because I hit post before I typed anything......

-Jack

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Jack]

[Ravenstorm]

By all means, defend the French against rampant ignorance. But do just a little bit of research so you don't end up looking just as foolish. A simple google search and you'd find the French Navy's own webpage. Their roster (translated):


Aircraft carrier

Aircraft carrier Charles of Gaulle (R 91)
Helicopter carrier Jeanne d' Arc (R 97)

Frigate missile launcher

Frigate Duquesne (D 603)

Anti-submarine frigates F67 type

Frigate Tourville (D 610) Frigate Of Fatty (D 612)

Anti-submarine frigates type F70 ASM

Frigate George Leygues (D 640) Frigate Dupleix (D 641)
Frigate Montcalm (D 642) Jean frigate of Vienna (D 643)
Frigate Primauguet (D 644) Frigate The Mound-Picquet (D 645)
Frigate Latouche-Tréville (D 646)

Anti-aircraft frigates type F70 AA

Frigate Cassard (D 614) Frigate Jean Bart (D 615)

Frigates standard Fayette

Frigate Fayette (F710) Frigate Surcouf (F711)
Frigate Billhook (F712) Frigate Aconite (F713)
Frigate Guépratte (F714)

Frigates of monitoring

Frigate Floréal (F 730) Frigate Meadow (F 731)
Frigate Nivôse (F 732) Frigate Ventôse (F 733)
Frigate Vendémiaire (F 734) Frigate Germinal (F 735)

Sloops A69 type

Lieutenant Lavallée (F 790) Ordering Herminier (F 791)
First Master Her (F 792) Commander Blaison (F 793)
Teach vessel Jacoubet (F 794) Commander Ducuing (F 795)
Commander Birot (F 796) Commander Bouan (F 797)
Lieutenant Hénaff (F 789)

Standard patrol craft Albatross

Patrol craft Albatross (P 681)

Standard patrol craft Arago

Patrol craft Arago (P 675)

Standard patrol craft OPV 54

Patrol craft Flamingo (P 676) Patrol craft Cormorant (P 677)
Patrol craft Plover (P 678)

Standard patrol craft P 400

Patrol craft The Daring One (P 682) Patrol craft The Sulky person (P 683)
Patrol craft The Capricious One (P 684) Patrol craft The Impetuous One (P 685)
Patrol craft The Glorious One (P 686) Patrol craft The Gracious One (P 687)
Patrol craft The Mocker (P 688) Patrol craft Railleuse (P 689)
Patrol craft The Black-headed gull (P 690) Patrol craft The Noisy One (P 691)

Standard patrol craft Espadon 50

Patrol craft Grèbe (P 679)

Standard patrol craft Tern

Patrol craft Tern (P 680)

Patrol craft of monitoring of sites (PSS)

Athos Type : PSS Athos (A 712), PSS Aramis ( A 713)

Hunters of mines Éridan type

Hunter Éridan (M 641) Hunter Cassiopé E (M 642)
Hunter Andromède (M 643) Hunter Pégase (M 644)
Hunter Orion (M 645) Hunter Cross of the South (M 646)
Hunter The Eagle (M 647) Hunter Quadrant (M 648)
Hunter Persée (M 649) Hunter Sagittarius (M 650)
Hunter Aquarius (M 651) Hunter Céphée (M 652)
Hunter Capricorn (M 653)

Buildings tug boats of sonars (BRS) standard Antarès

BRS Antarès (M 770) BRS Altaïr (M 771)
BRS Aldébaran (M 772)

Building-bases of plungers bomb disposal experts (BBPD)

Vulcan Type : Vulcan (M 611), Styx (M 614), Pluto (M 622), Achéron (A 613)

Transport of barges of unloading (TCD) the standard Lightning

TCD The Lightning (L 9011) TCD Sirocco (L 9012)

Transport of barges of unloading (TCD) standard Hurricane

TCD Hurricane (L 9021) TCD Storm (L 9022)

Buildings of light transport (BATRAL) standard Champlain

BATRAL Champlain (L9030) BATRAL Francis Garnier (L9031)
BATRAL Dumont d' Urville (L9032) BATRAL Jacques Cartier (L9033)
BATRAL Grandière (L9034)


Machines of unloading of infantry and tanks (EDIC)

Sabre (L 9051) Scraping-knife (L 9052)

Barges of unloading of infantry and tanks (CDIC)

Rapière (L 9061) Halberd (L 9062)


Raven

[Jack]

Also, the US now has 13 operational Aircraft Carriers. The USS Ronald Reagan has entered service. Further, if you wish to count the three Brittish ships as aircraft carriers, then you should include the US Equivelent to them, the LHA, and LHD class ships.

This would add another five ships from the Tarawa Class LHA, which is capable of handling up to ten helicopters simultaneously, or the AV-8 Harrier Jump Jet.

The Wasp Class LHD is a larger ship, designed speccifically to handle the AV-8 Harrier, the LCAC hovercraft, and all Marine Helicopters. There are currently 7 operational LHDs.

The LHA, and LHD are comperable to all three Brittish Aircraft Carriers.

[Jack]

How in the blue hell can you still say that? France has 2 aircraft carriers. Two is less than the three the UK has, and a whole hell of a lot less than 13. Hell, both of the aircraft carriers France has together can still only project about 1/3 of the force on US carrier battle group has. Those 11 Carriers you mentioned before are not in service. That list is every aircraft carrier ever to serve in France, from the very first in 1927. Of those 11, most were WWII surplus ships bought or lent to france by the US and UK. France's Navy is no where near as capable as that of the US. In surface warfare, or Air Warfare. France has a navy consisting mostly of Frigates, and patrol boats. Look at the post by Ravenstorm for exact numbers there.

The UK has 3 operational aircraft carriers. Six operational Destroyers, 8 operational type 23 frigates, 2 operational type 22 frigates, 2 operational amphibious assault ships (Helicopter and Harrier capable), 11 various patrol ships. A modern nuclear submarine fleet, including two classes of fast attack, and one class of SSBN submarines.

The Royal Navy outclasses that of France in every area except for one. The Royal Navy does not have an aircraft carrier equivelent to the Charles De Gaulle as of yet. They are currently working on designs for a full size aircraft carrier, and intend to replace the Sea Harrier with the Joint Strike Fighter.

Now, explain to me how France's Navy is anywhere near as powerful as that of the United States Navy, and how it outclasses the Royal Navy of the UK.

-Jack

[Xcalibur]

Yeah, you're right, I had an out-of-date stats of France's navy

They only got 2

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/index.htm

Still almost as good as UK's navy
and superior to 95% of nations that have none

:bouncy:

how many got Russia? Germany? China? Japan? Spain?

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Jack]

did I imagine a post between the two of mine by Xcalibur? I could have sworn he posted something stating that his numbers showed France had a navy comperable to the US, and superior to that of the UK. Maybe I was just seeing things....

-Jack

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Jack
did I imagine a post between the two of mine by Xcalibur? I could have sworn he posted something stating that his numbers showed France had a navy comperable to the US, and superior to that of the UK. Maybe I was just seeing things....

-Jack

I got false informations, never trust a French, hehehe paradoxal isn'T?

[Skirmisher]

Xcalibur,

It's great to be a cheerleader but yeah you steped in it on that one about claiming France had even a single aircraft carrier that was comperable to one of the US carriers.

It may be a small claim to fame, but the simple fact is that a single us carrier group is likely more than a match for the french surface navy and probably even the subs.

Now, back to the matter of Quebec.

If we can agree that the "conquering" to which you refer took place at least a hundred years ago, and that less and less, if I am reading your figures correctly, people in the province are in favor of seceding in each election then I don't quite understand the the force that drives you to which to leave Canada proper.

What exactly would you want changed assuming such a departure would be allowed?

[Jack]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Yeah, you're right, I had an out-of-date stats of France's navy

They only got 2

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/index.htm

Still almost as good as UK's navy
and superior to 95% of nations that have none

:bouncy:

how many got Russia? Germany? China? Japan? Spain?

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

Russia has one, Germany none, China has bought one from Russia, Japan is not allowed to build one per treaties signed after WWII, and Spain does not have any. Regardless, France is not a huge naval power by any stretch of the imagination.

-Jack

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Jack

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Yeah, you're right, I had an out-of-date stats of France's navy

They only got 2

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/navires/batiments/index.htm

Still almost as good as UK's navy
and superior to 95% of nations that have none

:bouncy:

how many got Russia? Germany? China? Japan? Spain?

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

Russia has one, Germany none, China has bought one from Russia, Japan is not allowed to build one per treaties signed after WWII, and Spain does not have any. Regardless, France is not a huge naval power by any stretch of the imagination.

-Jack

Point was not to prove they're the mightiest

point was to prove that any Americain that laugh at France's army doesn't know that they're almost as good as their NUMBER ONE ALLY (uk).

And they got more ACS and possibly ships than Russia, Germany, China, Japan, and Spain



[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Scott]

Just because they have the same number of ships, doesn't mean they are a better or even close to being the better navy.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Just because they have the same number of ships, doesn't mean they are a better or even close to being the better navy.

I don't understand, you're talking of the quality of leadership or the quality of the ships?

[Scott]

Training, abilities, leadership, technology.......

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Just because they have the same number of ships, doesn't mean they are a better or even close to being the better navy.

I don't understand, you're talking of the quality of leadership or the quality of the ships?
If the comparison is to either the UK or the US navy? Both.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Training, abilities, leadership, technology.......

Care to prove that?

What would be the top10 of the world's greatest army? (if possible to quantify)

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[Scott]

I have no idea, nor do I care. I never said that the UK has a better trained navy then France. You were the only one claiming that France had almost a good as navy as the UK because they had close to the same number as ships. So what, they have the same number of ships. Does that make them a better navy? Not at all.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I have no idea, nor do I care. I never said that the UK has a better trained navy then France. You were the only one claiming that France had almost a good as navy as the UK because they had close to the same number as ships. So what, they have the same number of ships. Does that make them a better navy? Not at all.

Does that makes them a worthless army still?
Does France have "no army" like too many little prick say so?

If they're 20% bellow UK, they're still 80% of UK's power, which i don't see as a "no army" label.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I have no idea, nor do I care. I never said that the UK has a better trained navy then France. You were the only one claiming that France had almost a good as navy as the UK because they had close to the same number as ships. So what, they have the same number of ships. Does that make them a better navy? Not at all.

Does that makes them a worthless army still?
Does France have "no army" like too many little prick say so?

If they're 20% bellow UK, they're still 80% of UK's power, which i don't see as a "no army" label.

I never said any of that. But do your stats mean that France has a "good army" or a "great army?" No. Some people need to realize that statistics don't make up the entire story. Hey guess what, Emmitt Smith had more rushing yards then Barry Sanders, does that mean Emmitt Smith was the better running back?

[CrystalTears]

So quantity means quality now?

[Scott]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So quantity means quality now?

Apperently. You know Bob has more posts then you CT, he must be a better poster.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So quantity means quality now?

I've still haven't met anyone here that can qualify UK's, France's or the US's leadership

My uncle is lieutenant colonel in the Canadian Army, he never wanted to answered that question, and I asked him like 20 times

All he saids was that stupid expression:

Best army is us's materials, canadian's leadership, uk's troop (don't comment it, I know it's idiot).

All my point was to prove that France isn't far behind UK, so when praising one, praise the other.

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by Xcalibur]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Apperently. You know Bob has more posts then you CT, he must be a better poster.

::laughs:: ::coughs:: ::wheezes:: ::cries:: ::pants:: ::laughs::

Quantity does not equal quality. This can be seen even in a movie called Lord of the Rings, where 1000 were able to defeat 10,000 because the 10,000 were morons, had no strategies or combat tactics. They only had numbers and they were still defeated. Kinda like the French army? :D

[Edited on 9/14/2003 by CrystalTears]

[Scott]

<<<All my point was to prove that France isn't far behind UK, so when praising one, praise the other.>>>>

All you did was show that France had ALMOST as many ships as the UK, you did not prove that anything more then that.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
<<<All my point was to prove that France isn't far behind UK, so when praising one, praise the other.>>>>

All you did was show that France had ALMOST as many ships as the UK, you did not prove that anything more then that.

I still haven't talk about leadership of any

There was 2-3 comments about the so-called no army of France.

All I did was to numbered their armies, which France isn't far from UK's

So when shiting on France's army, try to remember they're somewhat close to UK's

simple as that

[Scott]

Oh ok. So your point is that France has as many ships as UK and that's it correct?

[imported_Kranar]

France's army doesn't compare to the U.Ks army.

Granted France does still have one of the most powerful armies, it isn't as good as the U.Ks and it sure as hell isn't nearly as good as the U.S army.

I'm surprised you really care about the size of an army though.

[Artha]

Right, it's not like the US is going to invade Europe or vice versa.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Oh ok. So your point is that France has as many ships as UK and that's it correct?



Originally posted by longshot
Frace has an Army?



Originally posted by Artha
French soldiers to protect you?

The jokes...must...suppress...jokes...

And i've seen elsewhere in other topics those comments

France possess 43% of the quantity of UK's soldiers. For a country that has no army, i still think it's high enough.

That running joke that France got no army is as stupid as saying US went to war because JR wanted to avenge dady

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Kranar
France's army doesn't compare to the U.Ks army.

Granted France does still have one of the most powerful armies, it isn't as good as the U.Ks and it sure as hell isn't nearly as good as the U.S army.

I'm surprised you really care about the size of an army though.

Size matters in that case. An army is always quantify, not qualify

You never heard: Chinese mighty well trained elite troops

You heard: 50,000 troops (elite = propaganda)

No? :bouncy:

[CrystalTears]

Saying France has no army is just a tongue in cheek response. You know.. a joke. They may have an army but it's obviously nothing to brag over. So all this has been over to prove people wrong when they jokingly say "France has no army"? Oooh okay then. :lol:

[Tsa`ah]

How dare you insult the Legion! :P

I think the perception is due to the amount of conflicts each country has under it's belt when compared to another country.

Additionally I think it probably stems from the media in each society. The media in the states is notoriously slanted and commercial when compared to say the Canadian or British media.

[Artha]

Since you decided to reply to me to, my jokes weren't about the french not having an army. They were about the french army.

http://www.binarystorage.net/clients/flashbunny/pics/frenchy.jpg

[Jack]

I can't say I've ever served with any french officers, or trained along side any member of the french armed forces. So I cannot really say one way or another about them. I've served with Canadians, Australians, Brittish, and even done some exercises with the armed forces of Singapore. Nobody can say for sure who has the best leadership really. Each has a different style, and they seem to work well for them.

I can say this much. An Australian Soldier is most likely to be able to outdrink any of the others. Brittish soldiers have some strong accents, and Canadians sure have some funny looking uniforms. Overall, I was most impressed with the Australians I served with. When we go out on field exercises here in the states, it's for a couple weeks at most. Those guys will go out for a couple months. They train hard, they fight hard. France, well, I just haven't seen enough of them to really comment, but looking at History, my opinion is they deserve the jokes thrown at them.

-Jack

[Xcalibur]

Because they got beaten in WWII that easily?

Any country in France's position (sharing a fronter with Germany) would had lost. Germany was better, badder, stronger, and much more prepared.

Because they lost Indochine?
Same for the us

Because they lost all the colonies? same as UK

Because they're arrogant?


:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:

[Jack]

In the days of Napoleon (SP?) France had a powerful army, and an empire. After his defeat, France has lost every battle they've been involved in. They were beaten back in in WWII, and would have been destroyed entirely if not for the aid of the UK. The US contributed to their defense as well, but to a lesser extent than the UK. France suffered a defeat in WWII, surrendurring quickly, without any real attempt at fighting. And Germany came through Belgium, they did not pour through the shared border. In Korea, france contributed relatively little to the UN efforts. In Indochina France was slaughtered. They were defeated militarily, not through the bungling of their politicians, but due to the gross incompetence of their military.

Most recently the French Military has fought near open rebellion in Northern Africa. The United States sent in a Marine Expiditionary Unit to bail them out. The Miltiary of France is underfunded, and underequipped. It would also appear to me that they are undertrained.

-Jack

[longshot]

Why are the streets in Paris lined with trees?

So the Germans can march in the shade.

I'm going to bed now...

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by longshot
Why are the streets in Paris lined with trees?

So the Germans can march in the shade.

I'm going to bed now...

Yet another pot shot.

But only a half demerit, half credit for making a funny.:smilegrin:

Edited to add that any pot shot aimed at France automatically only gets half demerits.

Ok ok, trash Toronto too.

[Edited on 9-15-2003 by Skirmisher]