Welcome

RayJan

Let's start with smaller things-- Metric System.Metric system is used by so many different nations. It is an easier and more practical way of measuring things. US and UK don't use it out of pride of their heritage including their primitive system.Next-- MilitaryUS and UK are using their military in a primitive fashion. They use it more like how unstable African nations use it, to (with or interest or not) kill, destroy and just plain cause instability. France and friends, on the other hand, use it more on humanitarian reasons. France and friends actually deploy more UN peacekeepers (4%) than the USA(>1%). The French Foreign Legion ,alone, contributes a lot in non-UN peacekeeping.Next-- How they control nations.I will include UK with France and friends here. France&F, control nations especially former colonies by way of diplomacy, more on interaction with nations. Example, the UK commonwealth-- India cannot be controlled by UK nor is Singapore by way of intimidation. US... Well for US, threats of economic sanctions, invasion (poor Islamic Iran) and cuts on financial aid.Next-- View on UNUN programs such as disarmament and other programs (such as UN anti-invasion-iraq-2nd time) are criticized by Bush Jr. US as security council vetoes hundreds of proposals a hell lot (a lot) more than China who is perceived as a synonym for threat in US vocabulary. France&are movers of UN while US and UK are the only that's stopping them.Next-- PalestineWhichever side you stand on the issue (i'm for palestine)... You should realize by now that the only way to stop the conflict is to give Palestine the land they want. Give them borders = no war = Stability in the whole Muslim world. Give them borders and both countries will just go on their own separate path.Next-- View on internationalization.France in more of pro-world-government. Where multinations can be united while retaining their borders and culture. With every nation having equal power in voting. US has a slightly similar view, but US want to retain their dominance. US view is like, "yeah we kind of want that as long as we are in charge."I'm not an expert. I just want to put my opinions. So what do you guys think?For control--Control meaning, those developing nations who want to have a say but cannot because it is controlled by the USA (not physically). Such countries as, South Korea, Philippines, and those other US loving puppets out there. I did not mean the number of colonies they actually have controlled in the past but, instead, how they control those developing countries under them in the contemporary era.Middle-East--The two countries that cause instability in the region, IMO, is Iran and Israel. What I'm saying is that if Palestine is to be given what it wants, instability in the region might and IMO will be halved-- the region would be more stable. Nothing good comes out of the Muslim world hating Israel (an influential nation in the region) because their fellow Muslims are being killed by Israelis. Now for Iran. Middle-east countries don't hate each other and certainly are not not-killing each other because of a common enemy. The only Muslim country that has caused (aside from Iraq) instability and have the potential to cause it again is Iran. Iran being shiite and persian are of "different breed" from their neighbors. Your statement that middle-east is inherently unstable is wrong, IMO.2nd Answer on Military.You can go on forever with that. Again, I am not talking about historical facts here.In the world in which we live in today need less weapons and military. The Soviet union collapsed. North Korea is shit, China military is, forgive the stereotype, technologically inferior much like how they make Legos. Yes, both countries are potential threats. But both countries have not made any aggression in the last 20 years...-- China, in fact, has a territorial dispute with the Philippines and Vietnam west off the coast of the Philippine Sea yet they have not made any aggression or assertive demands to take by force (they rely more on the International Court to end the dispute-- never. Well except for Kim Jong Il's threats of wiping out Japan (which didn't happen yet), these guys are not a threat.What's more of a threat, whether or not they have selfish oil interests... USA is the threat. An unstable, unpredictable military power.

Mark2799

Perhaps the whole two countries in the world that love France can empathize with you and your position.The UK does not control past colonies. The US didn't have any major colonies. If you are saying that those two countries controlled more countries that France in the past, do not forget that France controlled huge parts of Africa and the Caribbean.Next you mention that giving Palestine land will help anyone. While it is a short time solution, no normal countries in the Middle East would be satisfied until Israel would be done away with. And once it is, you expect actual stability in the Middle East? It seems to me that you don't know any history of the Middle East. Most countries in the Mid East hate each other, the only reason they are not constantly fighting is because they have a common enemy. I believe my first sentence of this answer still stands.

ACEGordon

Metric System:I fail to see how this benefits society. As archaic as our system is it is the one that the people in this country understand most. The process of re educating a country of 300 Million people on the conversation would be Immense. Besides scientists in the US use and teach in metric form. Joe Sixpack isn't necessarily missing out on the Metric system.Militaryidn't Napoleon try to conquer the earth? Didn't France and England have something called the 100 year war? Didn't Frances hard line stance during the negotiation of the "Treaty of Versailles", which crippled Germany economically, lead to the rise of Hitler and the start of World War 2. Oh yeah not to mention gave France ownership of coal mines in the border region of Germany and France (a historical dispute which eventually lead to the creation of the European union). Oh yeah the "primitive" American and British forces helped free a German occupied France.How they control Nations:Really? After WW1 France took control of a lot of the Middle East and Africa as Britain and France Carved up the Ottoman Empire. Which imposed new boarders and leadership in each country (Iraq's reason for going into Kuwait is that Iraqi's believe Kuwait belongs as part of their country) The French and English concept of ruling these nations were to actually encourage Muslims to hate the Kurds, or the Shiite to hate the Sunni, because that made them focus more on what each other were doing and not the foreign countries were doing to the people like stealing the oil. Not to mention that the main reason America was involved in Vietnam was because of the French (it was called French Indochina).UN:This argument is based on the concept that the UN is a good thing. Oil- for food Scandal, anyone?... Oil that was supposed to be traded for Food and medical supplies to help the poor and hungry in Iraq after "Desert Storm" was traded for cash that lined the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his sons and benefited many countries including France and yes companies her in the US. The UN looks the other way to rape and murder by their officials (as everyone who works at the UN have diplomatic immunity). There are numerous allegations that UN officials and diplomats actually run and profit from human trafficking and child prostitution... The system is flawed in general. earlier you talked about French being involved more in UN peacekeeping missions more than the US. However, the US sends their own forces not as UN Peacekeepers but as the US. I.E. Mogadishu and "Black Hawk Down" the Americans killed were not "UN peacekeepers" but American forces working with UN forces. and there are numerous American forces working with NATO who work in conjunction with the UN.Palestine:What did this section have to do with France? Oh do they support Palestine? So America's support of Israel is than wrong? Why? Because you think Palestine is right? Thats a personal opinion of a situation where there is no "right" answer to this conflict. The area in question is called the "twice promised land" for a reason world leaders (including French and Americans) promised to support BOTH Jews and Palestinians formation of independent countries on land in modern day Israel in order to gain favor during and after WW2. Both have claim to the land by historical and political reasoning.View of Internationalization:The League of Nations failed to stop World War 2 or the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese, The UN cannot agree to do anything about Darfur other than to condemn the actions... A "one world" government will never work...France can say "We signed the Kyoto Protocol" or "We want a International Court of Justice" or "We want a one world Government body", but what good is saying it or signing it when you do not do anything about it? There is no traveling French Ambassador trying to get countries like the US to agree with them on these issues. Woodrow Wilson almost died trying to convince the US to join the League of Nations. Now I ask you this:Who has contributed more to the international world... France or the USA?Which Country has more medical or scientific achievements? Who created the first computer, who came up with the concept of interchangeable parts, the automobile, created the first working airplane, who pioneered the way for Heart surgery?France contributed the wonderful minds Descartes and Voltaire.But have they changed peoples lives more than Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, or Thomas Edison, or Bill Gates?I ask you to also re-examine France and their motivation behind a lot of what they do and have done... They are guided by self interest as much as the US or Britain, or China, or Russia or any other country in this world. To think they are not is... well that is the definition of arrogant.