France's History of Military Failure

[Dude_Doc]

We can also follow this in the evolution theory: the strongest always survives, and decides :P ...

[emprworm]

there is no such thing as the weak having power. it just cannot exist. the two concepts are opposittes. and before people get Biblical on me (about the meek inheriting the earth) keep in mind that the weak humans have the power of GOD, which is not exaclty weak. God happens to use humans that make themselves weak. But that is not the same as saying that the weak have power. It is saying that Gods Power flows through the meek. And that is not weakness at all.

Aside from Biblical reference (i dont want this to turn into a religion thread please, I only stated that in anticipation that someone could use the Bible as an example of the weak being powerful)- there is simply no such thing as a weak country having power.

With no way to enforce it, it is a delusion to call it "power". Power by definition means ability. If the security council has no ability to enforce a resolution, then it has no power.

Its a no brainer here guys.

Weak countries do not belong on the council

[Terror]

ROFL. Lets assume for a moment, that only weak countries were on the council.

Lets assume that the Security council members were Liechtenstein, Malta, Andorra, Grenada, and The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta.

Lets assume then that these countries are the ones that decide SECURITY issues of the world. Since they have no army and no ability whatsoever to enforce anything - they will rely on what?

Now you really think that the US, CHina, Russia will give a rats #$#$ about what The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta thinks they should do with their military? When you have impotent countries trying to dictatate world security, then you will quickly see that they will be a world laughing stock.

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: We, the Security Council of the United Nations declare that the US, CHina, and Great Britian send 100,000 peacekeeping troops into region X to mantain order.

United States, China, Great Britain: Bwaaa-hahaha. Send your own army.

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: No, you will comply. We are the security council. If you do not comply with our resolutions, there will be repercussions.

United States, China, Great Britain: Oh? Such as?

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: Uhhh......we will ask you a second time.

United States, China, Great Britain: And we will say no a second time. THen what?

The Sovereign Military Order Of Malta: Hmmm....uhhh.... pretty please?

LOL + LOL + ROFL

yea! Lets let weak countries w/o militaries order world security and pass resolutions that other countries are required to follow. See what happens when the US, China, GB, and Russia just simply leave the UN. You have no power...none...zippo...unless you have the strength to enforce it.

Kind of having a country with 200 million population and a police force of 10. LIke anyone is going to care about what the "cops" say.

>:( what are you thinking? No ofcourse not, but the reason that one should be allowed to join the council should NOT be because it has a powerful military. That is rediculous. A country does not need to have an army to have an opinion when it comes to war. If you have 10 countries led by people like bush in one council, now whoopidoo let's see what happens then uh? Let's attack the middle east, and china afterward to secure our position for the coming 50 years. there should be a a few people of every type of countries in the council, US, Russia, China, but also France, Germany, Great Brittain, Egypt, Italy, and other countries with less powerful armies.

[Gobalopper]

Flameweaver we are taking about permanent seats on the security council not disallowing France. Any country can be on the security council but only a select few are permanent.

When the security council was created the permanent members were selected because they were the "big boys" of the world at the time. All we are saying is that there are other countries that should take France's place because they are no longer as powerful a country they used to be.

[emprworm]

A country does not need to have an army to have an opinion when it comes to war.

This is not opinion we are talking about, we are talking about POWER. The security council must have power or it is a farce.

When the security council passes a resolution, if it has no power to enforce it, then it is worth as much as a sheet of single-ply used toilet paper. Heck anyone can have an opinion on the war. I have an opinion. BUt if you are going to making world decision and requiring other people to follow those decisions, then you must have power to enforce them. France, of which, has little.

[Terror]

A country does not need to have an army to have an opinion when it comes to war.

This is not opinion we are talking about, we are talking about POWER. The security council must have power or it is a farce.

When the security council passes a resolution, if it has no power to enforce it, then it is worth as much as a sheet of single-ply used toilet paper. Heck anyone can have an opinion on the war. I have an opinion. BUt if you are going to making world decision and requiring other people to follow those decisions, then you must have power to enforce them. France, of which, has little.

yes, but you can't put just a bunch of war countries in one council, that will only create war. There need also be men to reason with the others. Even now the US is trying to attack Iraq even without the worlds permission. If it should only be countries of power in the council, then why isn't saddam in? He has a decent army and probably wishes to expand it with atomic weapons, then it will be one of the superpowers, so in that case should they not be in the council then? just because they have power?

[emprworm]

Iraq has no power. they should not be on the council.

one trident submarine could take care of Iraq.

in the next 20 minutes, the US could render Iraq nothing more than a wasteland of burning oil columns.

Iraq has no power.

[nemafakei]

I see. So there's nothing wrong with the decision, just that it wouldn't be obeyed...

So the world shall be governed by those with the military power to do so.

Unfortunate.

[emprworm]

I see. So there's nothing wrong with the decision, just that it wouldn't be obeyed...

So the world shall be governed by those with the military power to do so.

Unfortunate.

that is how it has always been. always and forever will be.

there is simply no such thing as "governing" without having power to govern. people will simply not abide by laws that have no force behind them. An impotent country making world law will get as much respect as a grass stain on my white carpet. People will just laugh at someone with no power trying to "govern" them. they wont care and will treat them like poop-stained underwear. unfortunate? Yes. but that is cold hard human reality.

[Edric O]

As I've said, if Nazi Germany were still around, Emprworm would argue that it should be a permanent member on the Security Council, due to all its military power...

[nemafakei]

It bears a poor message about ourselves, and our ways of deciding things... on solving which you know my views well enough.

[DukeLeto]

And I hope and trust that France will not contribute to any such wars of imperialism and oppression.

Err...like the Napoleanic Wars? ::) ;D

[Edric O]

Yes. Exactly. They did those things in the past, so now they should have the wisdom and experience to not do so again.

[TMA_1]

empr, I agree that france is not in line with the most powerful nations, but other nations on the security counsel are just as low in power. You have to realize that not all nations have the military might like america. Also, nema is right, since when does power mean military power? security has more to do with war. Security is not just killing.

[nampigai]

Iraq has no power. they should not be on the council.

one trident submarine could take care of Iraq.

in the next 20 minutes, the US could render Iraq nothing more than a wasteland of burning oil columns.

Iraq has no power.

well see here you are wrong, before the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the Largest standing armies so they really should have been in the security council.

Now the reason why you don't want France in the security council isn't it really because they don't allways agree with the US? And India, Pakistan and North Korea have large military too hell they should also be in the security council.

Everyone with huge armies and nuclear weapons should rule the less militarised countries. This is a world I wouldn't live in.

[Caid Ivik]

NORTH KOREA! Please, be aware what you are writing. They are de iure still in war with south part of peninsula and only thanks to all other countries there is a security. Countries in Security Council must have also some diplomats, which try to find peaceful solution of conflicts. Someone who has no moral barrier to start nuclear war must NOT be there.

[The_Sadukar]

SHOW SOME COMPASSION FOR THE U.S.

why should we?

[nampigai]

Caid I was being Sarcastic, aperantly Army size and ability to destroy is what it takes to be in the security council.

[emprworm]

Iraq has no power. they should not be on the council.

one trident submarine could take care of Iraq.

in the next 20 minutes, the US could render Iraq nothing more than a wasteland of burning oil columns.

Iraq has no power.

well see here you are wrong, before the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the Largest standing armies so they really should have been in the security council.

Now the reason why you don't want France in the security council isn't it really because they don't allways agree with the US? And India, Pakistan and North Korea have large military too hell they should also be in the security council.

Everyone with huge armies and nuclear weapons should rule the less militarised countries. This is a world I wouldn't live in.

lol! This is why you prove me so right. LIsten to what I said:

"Iraq has no power"

Now listen to what you said: "before the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the Largest standing armies so they really should have been in the security council. "

And how big was their army after the Gulf war? LOL! :D

This is proof that the size of an army is irrelevant. iraq never had power. Never. They still don't. And this argument that Hitler should have been on the council- well consider this for a moment: he had no power but that which apathetic people gave him. We were FORTUNATE that he was stopped before his power increased further. If all the apathy of dictator appeasers like we see today had their way with Hitler, and he became the most powerful on earth, then yea, he would be on the security council. A security council of one. And who would stop him? Obviously if he has power to be there....no one would stop him.

Just because someone has power doesn't mean they get automatic seat in the council UNLESS they have enough power to overthrow everyone else. Then the council will have to submit or die. Two requirements must be met to be on the council: #1: Power, #2: the others on the council must approve of it. Obviously no one in in the council would approve of Saddam having a seat there, so that kind of argument is rediculous.

[nampigai]

Then please tell me how would you decide who is in the council, how would you know who's army is most powerfull? let each other fight and the winners are in the council? emprworm before the first gulf war we didn't know how strong he was did we? I believe we should have Pakistan, India and North Korea into the security council the seem strong enough don't you think?

I'll tell you one thing I won't be intimidated by some idiots thinking they can force me to do what they want because their words are backed up with nuclear weapons, then I'd rather die.

But please tell me who should take France's place in the security council?

[emprworm]

Then please tell me how would you decide who is in the council, how would you know who's army is most powerfull? let each other fight and the winners are in the council? emprworm before the first gulf war we didn't know how strong he was did we? I believe we should have Pakistan, India and North Korea into the security council the seem strong enough don't you think?

I'll tell you one thing I won't be intimidated by some idiots thinking they can force me to do what they want because their words are backed up with nuclear weapons, then I'd rather die.

But please tell me who should take France's place in the security council?

Lol, Nam. The security council does not exist without power, otherwise it would mean nothing. When a resolution is passed, it has no meaning unless there is power behind it so that a country understands it could be in big trouble if it doesn't obey.

You think the US is going to allow Iraq on the council? You are dreaming. The US will say "NO"

Then what will Nam say?

[nampigai]

LOL Emprworm you think I'll be dictated by the US?

you didn't answer my question, who should be in the security council instead of France?

[emprworm]

LOL Emprworm you think I'll be dictated by the US?

you didn't answer my question, who should be in the security council instead of France?

pretty much anyone.

And if the US says "NO" to a country wanting on the security council, what does that mean?

[TMA_1]

"If all the apathy of dictator appeasers like we see today had their way with Hitler."

no need for that kind of slandor empr. cool it down a bit.

[emprworm]

heh, sure.

but aside from the zealous remark, if lets say the US and Russia say "NO" to someone wanting on the security council. Lets say that a bunch of weaker countries "vote in" someone to be on the council, but the powerful countries say "NO".

THen what?