The list of French traitors

Frenchies, unlike us Brits, you are lucky - you have been betrayed by less traitors than us. However, a few traitors have weakened your country, namely:

1) Francois Mitterand - committed treason - he reduced the number of strategic bombers. He and Chirac also reduced the French nuclear arsenal by 190 warheads. He's dead now, so he can't be punished.
2) Jacques Chirac - committed treason - he signed the CTBT, which forbids the French military to test nukes. He also decommissioned both aircraft carriers of the French Navy (R98 and R99) before their replacements were ready (the FN now has only one aircraft carrier and the second one won't be delivered until 2014). Also, he has forbidden Gijonese to scrap one of those decommissioned aircraft carriers. He will be tried after he leaves the presidential palace.
3) The French media - it's strange that the media didn't tell the French people about the worst traitors since Petain.

Ahh.. I can see what you're getting at..and why you wanted info
But I doubt there are many French on ATS.. atleast military-esque types

Anyways, All responsible nuclear weapons states had signed on to the CTBT at the time.
The treaty is flawed I agree, but it was the 'thing-to-do' at the time.

Are you serious about trying Chirac??!
And more importantly.. Are you French?

So you are saying that you have to promote some bill that rids the world of so and so weapons to be lableled as a traitor?

That is ridiculous, I guess if you are an arms trader and you have a vested interested in such an industry it would be tantamount to betrayal.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Anyways, All responsible nuclear weapons states had signed on to the CTBT at the time.

It doesn't mean Britain and France should have done likewise.

The treaty is flawed I agree

It is flawed. Russia is a signatory, but nevertheless the Russian military keeps testing nuclear weapons. Therefore the treaty means that the Russians can test nukes, but we and the French cannot.

Are you serious about trying Chirac??!

Yes. He won't be tried for signing the CTBT though. He will be tried for corruption.

And more importantly.. Are you French?

No, I'm British, but I do want all three Western powers - Britain, France and the US - to strengthen their militaries.

No, I'm British, but I do want all three Western powers - Britain, France and the US - to strengthen their militaries.


Why? They are already the top 4 military suppliers in the world. It would be hard to go up from there.

Originally posted by Isthistaken
So you are saying that you have to promote some bill that rids the world of so and so weapons to be lableled as a traitor?

It doesn't, it just weakens France. According to the French law, anyone who weakens the French military is a traitor, and until 1981 the French penal code said that traitors should be executed. However, when Mitterand won the elections, the death penalty was stricken.

Why?

Because currently the world's 4 militarily strongest countries are the US, Russia, India and China. Russia is the West's enemy, so we need to strengthen Western militaries. Like the French military, the US military has been severely weakened by both Bushes, Reagan and Clinton.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Actually it would make more sense to strengthen your enemy so you have an excuse to strengthen your own.

If you want a 10 foot sword, give your enemy a 9 and half foot sword.

How about Franklin Roosevelt?

He introduced socialism to the U.S. through his "New Deal" programs.

He called Josef Stalin, one of the worst of the 20th century brutal murderous dictators, "Uncle Joe."

He signed away Eastern Europe to the U.S.S.R. A policy that left millions under a de facto Soviet occupation for decades.

He broke the over century-long tradition of Presidents only seeking 2 terms in office, giving up the Presidency only in death.

It's hard to top that, even for a Frenchman.

[edit on 4/14/2007 by djohnsto77]

So, by your logic, a country should aspire to, and their military is graded by, nuclear weapons? A foolish proposition at best -- Warmongering, especially in regards to a nuclear arsenal is just childish 'I want the biggest boom!' mentality.

Oh, do tell. When was the last time Russia -tested- a nuclear weapon? I must've missed this.

And no, the treaty does not mean 'your interpretation'. The treaty says what the treaty says, and even if the Russians were testing nukes. ...Which they aren't. That simply means they aren't abiding by the treaty.

Chirac will not be tried for anything. Just like Tony Blair, and Bush. This is more nonsensical prattling from someone who thinks the law must be taken in its most literal sense, and stretched to its breaking points.

Strengthening, I believe, is quite relative. As a purely, opinionated example: The United States military, I believe, would be 'strengthened' if it had a less 'politically-correct' approach, stopped worrying about numbers, and more about raising the standard of quality of both troops, and equipment that they do have on the ground. Numbers games are over, and much as we'd like to think we can supply every single troop with the latest and greatest -- We can't. Even when we have the money for it. We really need, right now, an increasingly high-tech, numerically inferior military.

Originally posted by Iblis
So, by your logic, a country should aspire to, and their military is graded by, nuclear weapons?

It's not the only criterion but it is one of the criteria.

Oh, do tell. When was the last time Russia -tested- a nuclear weapon?

2 years ago. I'll provide a link when possible.

And no, the treaty does not mean 'your interpretation'.

I didn't interprete the treaty. I just said that the treaty prohibits nuclear testing and that the Russians violated the treaty.

Which they aren't.

They are, and you won't change this by simply denying this. Of course, as is always the case, you are unable to back up your claims with evidence.

Chirac will not be tried for anything.

He will, although not for signing the CTBT. Read this: uk.reuters.com...

Just like Tony Blair, and Bush.

9 years ago Tony Blair was tried (not for signing the CTBT though, he was tried for signing the Amsterdam Treaty), but repealed the treason law before the trial ended.

equipment that they do have

The Bush administration is working to ensure they have good equipment. Example: www.globalsecurity.org...

Lastly, stop trashing this thread. You are an unknowledgeable person who writes a hundred ridiculous claims everyday and cannot back up any of those claims with evidence. It's bad enough you are trashing one thread, please don't trash this one.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by INeedHelp
2 years ago. I'll provide a link when possible.

Please do with utmost urgency..Its a very strong accusation.

Being British, your emotional interest in French geopolitics is quaint to say the least.

And being British I suppose you'd be more worried about the RN fleet cuts, RN tridents cuts etc etc..?

Its a strong accusation.

Well, not 2 years ago - 18 years ago (link: www.globalsecurity.org...). However, they have signed the First Test Ban Treaty 1963, and therefore have violated it. This means that according to the treaty, we and the Americans are forbidden to test nukes, but the Russians aren't.

Being British

It doesn't mean I hate the French. And yes, I want their armed forces to be strong. They could be a good, helpful ally if they strengthened military.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
And being British I suppose you'd be more worried about the RN fleet cuts, RN tridents cuts etc etc..?

I'm equally worried about them, but the SLBM cuts won't be serious. The arsenal will just be reduced by 20 warheads.

Strengthening is relative.

No.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Mitterand and Chirac have also reduced general military spending and thus weakened the French military. 15 years ago it accounted for 4% of GDP, now it accounts for 3% of GDP.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

The French

The thing that really bugs me about them is that they blocked or tried to block Iraq because they had a bunch of $$ involved not because is was right or wrong.

Originally posted by Royal76
The French

The thing that really bugs me about them is that they blocked or tried to block Iraq because they had a bunch of $$ involved not because is was right or wrong.

Actually, the thing that really bugs you is that your nation is in a self-made mess that the French comfortably steered clear off. I guess its quite easy to point at others when you don´t want to review your own mistakes, hmm? The often-recited money factor that Americans like to use against France (or Germany, or Russia) is simply not feasible and simplistic, as the money investions were quite small compared to the overall power of these economies. Nevertheless it is used as a FAKE argument to ARTIFICIALLY sanction the botched Iraq invasion.

Not to say money had no influence, but the main reason for oppostion was and IS that the whole Iraq Invasion was contrary to the wishes and perception of justice of the respective nations AND their citizens - and no self-hypnosis will ever change that.

Just accept that most of the World didn´t want to join your little World-police fiesta, and move on.

++++++++

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Its a strong accusation.

Well, not 2 years ago - 18 years ago (link: www.globalsecurity.org...). However, they have signed the First Test Ban Treaty 1963, and therefore have violated it. This means that according to the treaty, we and the Americans are forbidden to test nukes, but the Russians aren't. ...

Eeerm... You were accusing Iblis of not bringing evidence, yet you don´t do it yourself. And actually, Iblis is correct in that the Russians are no longer testing nuclear weapons. Their last (actually, the last Soviet) nuclear device was detonated in 1990 (Source, and you´ll find plenty of other sites that will tell you the same). And the Russian federation has not done any nuclear testing since it came into existence.

You also said that the Russians signed the first test ban and continued to test, which in itself is correct. What is not ceorrect is that they VIOLATED the treaty by it. The first test ban was the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which prohibited nuclear testing in the athmosphere, outer space and under water (with the aim to reduce widespread pollution). You´ll find the text of this treaty, which is unmistakably clear, here.

Your own link to globalsecurity.org can show you that the major test site was entirely away from the sea, so they were hardly capable of doing underwater tests. And this article shows that the Soviets did not undertake any athmospheric test in athmosphere AFTER 1962. So contrary to what you claim, all evidence says that the Soviets have not violated the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Next, you said that the Russians (while meaning the Soviets) were conducting nuclear tests while the Brits and the French were not allowed to (which is wrong as that was not the focus of the 1963 treaty). Need I remind you of 1995 and the "F*** Chirac campaign"? Probably, as you stated you were 20 years old and then you might not have realized what was going on at that time. In 1995 France under then-new president Jacques Chirac were the LAST of all western nations to conduct nuclear tests, which created an uproar throughout the West.

And only in 1996 the CTBT, or comprehensive test ban treaty, was signed which forbids ALL kinds of nuclear testing. And while the treaty is still not in effect due to the opposition of states like Pakistan and India, all major powers have adhered to it since then.

AAAND to get back on your topic: Please line out why Mitterand and Chirac are guilty of treason for dismantling unneccessary nuclear devices and delivery systems while still retaining enough of a nuclear deterrent. Because MOST normal-thinking people would agree that the fewer nuclear weapons around, the better... which is exactly the reason why not only France, but also Russia/the Soviet Union, The United Kingdom and the USA have reduced their stockpiles in mutual agreement. Look up keywords like SALT I and II, START I and the aforementioned Partial test ban treaty and CTBT.

....zibi

[edit on 14/4/2007 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by INeedHelp
9 years ago Tony Blair was tried (not for signing the CTBT though, he was tried for signing the Amsterdam Treaty), but repealed the treason law before the trial ended.

I think this is interesting. By whom was he tried, for what reason, and can you show us any proof? If the trial ended, that must mean he's not guilty of whatever he was charged of, right? He'd be in jail by now if that wasn't the case.

The treason law is still in place, by the way. It hasn't been repealed - you can still be charged for treason in the UK. You may remember sometime last year that there was an interpreter in the British Army who had been threatened with treason charges over giving intel to the Iranians.

[edit on 14/4/07 by Ste2652]

Well, you can be sure of one thing - The French won't spend 400 million dollars to impeach a president for taking a lover.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Well, not 2 years ago - 18 years ago (link: www.globalsecurity.org...). However, they have signed the First Test Ban Treaty 1963, and therefore have violated it. This means that according to the treaty, we and the Americans are forbidden to test nukes, but the Russians aren't.

18 years ago Russia did not exist, that would have been the USSR. They are two different countries.

And yes, I want their armed forces to be strong. They could be a good, helpful ally if they strengthened military.

And who are you planning to fight?
And the French haven’t really been an asset in Afghanistan.

. The arsenal will just be reduced by 20 warheads.

How is that a bad thing? Who are you planning to nuke that would need more then twenty nukes to kill? Pulse the US’s few thousand. NATO has more then enough power to take out Russia if need be.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How about Franklin Roosevelt?

He introduced socialism to the U.S. through his "New Deal" programs.

He called Josef Stalin, one of the worst of the 20th century brutal murderous dictators, "Uncle Joe."

Neither of those two actions continence an act of treason as defined by Article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
He signed away Eastern Europe to the U.S.S.R. A policy that left millions under a de facto Soviet occupation for decades.

Bad policy or lack of foresight isn't in there either. But to bad it isn't

Originally posted by djohnsto77
He broke the over century-long tradition of Presidents only seeking 2 terms in office, giving up the Presidency only in death.

And led us into and through the Second World War. God bless that man. Its a shame that the 22nd Amendment passed. Just think instead of Bush 41 we could've had Reagan for an extra term at least. Oh and Bill could be enjoying his 4th term as we speak. if only (

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Its a strong accusation.

Well, not 2 years ago - 18 years ago (link: www.globalsecurity.org...). However, they have signed the First Test Ban Treaty 1963, and therefore have violated it. This means that according to the treaty, we and the Americans are forbidden to test nukes, but the Russians aren't. ...

Eeerm... You were accusing Iblis of not bringing evidence, yet you don´t do it yourself.

I do provide evidence. I said that the Russians violated the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and I have proven myself to be right with this link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

The LTBT prohibits surface nuclear tests, yet the Russians have conducted 26 surface nuclear tests 1949-1989, meaning that they conducted the last surface test 1989, 26 years after they signed the LTBT.

And the Russian federation has not done any nuclear testing

No credible person would ever say that the USSR wasn't a Russian empire dominated by the Russians. If you meant, however, that the Russians have not tested nuclear weapons since 1991, then yes, you are right, but they have violated the LTBT earlier.

What is not ceorrect is that they VIOLATED the treaty by it. The first test ban was the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which prohibited nuclear testing in the athmosphere, outer space and under water

Yes, and the treaty, properly called the Limited Test Ban Treaty, prohibited conducting surface nuclear test too. They have conducted 87 atmospheric tests and 26 surface tests at Semipalatinsk 1949-1989. Proof: www.globalsecurity.org...

all evidence says that the Soviets have not violated the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

You have now proven you haven't read that website. It says the Russians have conducted 87 atmospheric tests and 26 surface tests 1949-1989, and that is prohibited by the LTBT.

Next, you said that the Russians (while meaning the Soviets) were conducting nuclear tests while the Brits and the French were not allowed to (which is wrong as that was not the focus of the 1963 treaty). Need I remind you of 1995 and the "F*** Chirac campaign"? Probably, as you stated you were 20 years old and then you might not have realized what was going on at that time. In 1995 France under then-new president Jacques Chirac were the LAST of all western nations to conduct nuclear tests, which created an uproar throughout the West.

I've mentioned only us Brits, not the French (however, I have said that NOW they aren't allowed to test nuclear weapons).

And while the treaty is still not in effect due to the opposition of states like Pakistan and India, all major powers have adhered to it since then.

Irrelevant. The Russians have already violated LTBT at least once, so I don't believe they will adhere to the CTBT.

Please line out why Mitterand and Chirac are guilty

I didn't cite the termination of IRBMs and 190 warheads as the only act of treason they have committed. READ MY POSTS.

I think this is interesting. By whom was he tried, for what reason, and can you show us any proof?

Sure I can provide Proof which is shocking!

And who are you planning to fight?

I don't know who will threaten the French, which is one of the reasons they should maintain a strong military - so that they will be prepared for the future, which is unpredictable. We Brits should too.

Afghanistan

Don't mention that country. The Afghan war is a pointless one (I don't think I need to explain why), the French should withdraw from Afghanistan.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

[edit on 15-4-2007 by INeedHelp]