• This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:

    1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.

    2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.

    3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.

    Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.

    Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.

    Thank you!

The Mighty French Army

Rob

Mourinho’s Assistant
Just a brief, on the history, of the mighty French Army.

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by, above 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 flowerpots 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 every 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. 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.
 
V

voetballiefhebb

Guest
For good reasons too. They know what war is like. The current evidence that the UK and USA have, well, it does not justify a bullet being fired let alone a bomb being dropped.

The war is illegal. Invading a country, bombing a country, killing innocent people, and ousting a leader is not legal without the backing of the UN. There are two things which could legalise war, Iraq attacks USA or UK first, or the war has the backing of the security council. There were resolutions passed which legalised an attack on Iraq which we know as the Gulf war. They expired though. Currently, if Iraq was proved, and this is hardline evidence needed to show that they are in breach of 1441, then that would get the backing of the UN and would legalise war.

UK and USA seem to think Saddam are breaking the rules. The USA and UK have provided false evidence, and are going to invade, and kill innocent people, and which USA have done in everywar committed blue on blue. All this over a hunch. It's not acceptable.

I have to credit France, Germany, and Russia for standing up for what they believe in. Kudos to them.
 

KingPaulV

Starting XI
Actually......................the Gulf war did not end with a permanent peace treaty therefore, it ended with a cease fire, conditional upon the full and verified disarmament of Iraq........The UN has recognized thru 17 resolutions (now 18) that Iraq has not fullfilled its obligation to disarm as per accordance to the cease fire clauses.............thougth I'll let you know
 
V

voetballiefhebb

Guest
Bush and Blair seem to think it is a game. If they want out with Saddam so much, why not go and do it themselves? They are not exactly a leader are they? I mean, getting other people to do their dirty work. Just a bunch of pussies at the end of the day.
 

Joe

Starting XI
Originally posted by voetballiefhebb
I have to credit France, Germany, and Russia for standing up for what they believe in. Kudos to them.

I have to credit the US, UK, etc. for standing up for what they believe in. Kudos to them.
 

Rob

Mourinho’s Assistant
I want Saddam removed.
But I don't want a war, they damn US and UK have had 12 years to just send a CIA agent in to Iraq and knock out Saddam.

But why do that? when you can take over the country, and take control over its Natural Resources *cough*oil*cough*
 

Rob

Mourinho’s Assistant
What do you mean I can't have them both?
As in No war and Saddam Removed?

They have had 12 years to remove Saddam Easily.

Heard of assaination? (However you spell it, Please Excuse Bad Spelling)

Even thoe, yes it did start ww1 in 1914.
 

Rob

Mourinho’s Assistant
Yes, but they have had 12 years, before all of these "doubles".z

As for Osama, how old he is? I know he also has a Kidney Failure Problem.
 
V

voetballiefhebb

Guest
They can't even catch Usama. What makes you think they could catch Saddam?
 

JTNY

Starting XI
WW1, Archduke to Austrian throne assassinated by rogue nationalist in Serbia.

This assassination was the only the final nail in the coffin. The tensions were rising through the decades from defensive and attacking alliances, strategic scheming and the expansion of economies.

All foreign policy decisions especially involving war are only based on economic or some sort of gain. The Franco-Russian hesitance for invasion stems from those states believing they have something to gain from not backing a war. Possibly weakening US foreign outlook, so the US economy does not rise further ahead. By the same token, of course the US's stance on Iraq also stems from economic gain.
 

ShiftyPowers

Make America Great Again
Originally posted by ImmUniTy
They have had 12 years to remove Saddam Easily.

Heard of assaination? (However you spell it, Please Excuse Bad Spelling)

Dumbass, assasination is illegal. One CIA agent has already been tried for helping to incite a coup in mid-90s Iraq, why would anyone risk their job and life to take out some guy half a world away?
 
V

voetballiefhebb

Guest
Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Dumbass, assasination is illegal.

So is invading a country, bombing a country, ousting a leader, and killing innocent people. Also known as 'The war on Iraq'.
 

Rob

Mourinho’s Assistant
Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Dumbass, assasination is illegal. One CIA agent has already been tried for helping to incite a coup in mid-90s Iraq, why would anyone risk their job and life to take out some guy half a world away?
To prevent killing children? and other people who have done nothing?

Dumbass
 


Top