Who will win WW3?

[bryant.coleman]

I don't want to win these communist countries if they will win World War III then they will conquer the world and they will forced us to be a communist. Everything in the bible is happening. Nations against nations, brothers against brother killing one another.  

Communist countries? Which ones? As per my understanding, the only communist / socialist countries existing right now are the United States and the European Union member nations. Russia and China have adopted capitalism long back. The communist party and its offshoots are not in power in any of the former Soviet Union republics.

[McDonalds5]

I don't want to win these communist countries if they will win World War III then they will conquer the world and they will forced us to be a communist. Everything in the bible is happening. Nations against nations, brothers against brother killing one another.  

Communist countries? Which ones? As per my understanding, the only communist / socialist countries existing right now are the United States and the European Union member nations. Russia and China have adopted capitalism long back. The communist party and its offshoots are not in power in any of the former Soviet Union republics.

I agree. We in the west have this modern day socialism where money is taken from low income taxpayer workers and given to the banks  

[Losvienleg]

I don't want to win these communist countries if they will win World War III then they will conquer the world and they will forced us to be a communist. Everything in the bible is happening. Nations against nations, brothers against brother killing one another.  

Communist countries? Which ones? As per my understanding, the only communist / socialist countries existing right now are the United States and the European Union member nations. Russia and China have adopted capitalism long back. The communist party and its offshoots are not in power in any of the former Soviet Union republics.

I agree. We in the west have this modern day socialism where money is taken from low income taxpayer workers and given to the banks  

Also don't forget the planned destruction of the roots of your people and even your people, a big laxism, and then you have described it very well.

[BADecker]

I don't want to win these communist countries if they will win World War III then they will conquer the world and they will forced us to be a communist. Everything in the bible is happening. Nations against nations, brothers against brother killing one another.  

Communist countries? Which ones? As per my understanding, the only communist / socialist countries existing right now are the United States and the European Union member nations. Russia and China have adopted capitalism long back. The communist party and its offshoots are not in power in any of the former Soviet Union republics.

I agree. We in the west have this modern day socialism where money is taken from low income taxpayer workers and given to the banks  

It certainly is this way to some small extent. Things have changed. The banking Ponzi ran out of people and companies in the U.S. long ago. That's why they are going after the world, even if they have to start wars to bring these people into their Ponzi.

The people of the world are resisting going into the Ponzi, or continuing it it if their country is in it already. In addition, the Euro Ponzi is about European bankers trying to make their own brand of a Ponzi, and make their portion to the Federal Reserve Bank Ponzi work better for them. ISIS is about fighting to stay out of the Ponzi. China and Asia is about tying to make a dual system work - Ponzi and value money.

Ponzi's don't last forever. The resistance to the Ponzi, along with the using yup of people in the world to be brought in, is bringing the Ponzi down. When it crashes, be ready with gold and silver, and maybe Bitcoin.

[cmg777]

north korea wont be a winner of world war three according to me .. it will be at losers sides..

I agreed but contend to say that North Korea is nothing more than China's angry puppet. If attacked China might get drawn into this conflict.

[aardvark15]

There are wars all over the world all the time.  I'm not sure if there will technically be a ww3 unless we are already in it.  If there is a big one that divides the major countries, it's possible that everyone will lose because the major countries all have nukes.  Once the nuke come out, it's all over for everyone.

[bryant.coleman]

north korea wont be a winner of world war three according to me .. it will be at losers sides..

I agreed but contend to say that North Korea is nothing more than China's angry puppet. If attacked China might get drawn into this conflict.

The relations between the DPRK and China is not that warm now, as it used to be. After Kim Jong-un became the "Supreme Leader", he tried to replace the Chinese imports with cheaper and better quality imports from neighboring Russia. The Chinese are not happy about it. Also, Kim is planning to develop many of the rare earth deposits in DPRK, with help from Russia. This can threaten China's monopoly on rare earth exports.

[mOgliE]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

[salinizm]

Nobody would win.

you reckon... china will screw all of us up at the end of that war..

[Losvienleg]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

[mOgliE]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

[Losvienleg]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides. I see a kind of coup d'État defying State's authority and finally win because of more power and no fear to do war. Then can either have a far-right government, created by the same people as bedhind the coup d'État taking over France or keep splitting it.

Japan wanted to end war, but not at no condition like the USA wanted, so they killed 200 000+ innocent civilians to don't have to agree with the Japanese. This is what is called terrorism, or killing civilians in order to exerce political pressure, like the General de Gaulle did during the WW2, or like they did for the 11/9. This time, this was even worst, because this was against their own people. But nothing stop the American devils...

[unixs_26]

USA + NATO + Israel they are controlling the world <br /> <br />Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App

[mOgliE]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides. I see a kind of coup d'État defying State's authority and finally win because of more power and no fear to do war. Then can either have a far-right government, created by the same people as bedhind the coup d'État taking over France or keep splitting it.

Japan wanted to end war, but not at no condition like the USA wanted, so they killed 200 000+ innocent civilians to don't have to agree with the Japanese. This is what is called terrorism, or killing civilians in order to exerce political pressure, like the General de Gaulle did during the WW2, or like they did for the 11/9. This time, this was even worst, because this was against their own people. But nothing stop the American devils...

De Gaulle did this? I'm interested please tell me more.

Well if France is divided it'll be all a question of which part gets the army.
But there is 0chance something like this happens. People are too lazy. French live an easy life without even knowing their luck. And they get raped by capital and banks without saying anything.
No, the people will be too glad to be manipulated again and spit on terrorism (which is an insignificant threat) and migrants (which are no threat at all).

People are too dumb. They won't fight for what is right.

[Losvienleg]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides. I see a kind of coup d'État defying State's authority and finally win because of more power and no fear to do war. Then can either have a far-right government, created by the same people as bedhind the coup d'État taking over France or keep splitting it.

Japan wanted to end war, but not at no condition like the USA wanted, so they killed 200 000+ innocent civilians to don't have to agree with the Japanese. This is what is called terrorism, or killing civilians in order to exerce political pressure, like the General de Gaulle did during the WW2, or like they did for the 11/9. This time, this was even worst, because this was against their own people. But nothing stop the American devils...

De Gaulle did this? I'm interested please tell me more.

Well if France is divided it'll be all a question of which part gets the army.
But there is 0chance something like this happens. People are too lazy. French live an easy life without even knowing their luck. And they get raped by capital and banks without saying anything.
No, the people will be too glad to be manipulated again and spit on terrorism (which is an insignificant threat) and migrants (which are no threat at all).

People are too dumb. They won't fight for what is right.

I see something like a coalition of far-right people from all the Europe uniting themselves and taking a city by night, in an isolated part of France, like the Jura. The army would never fire on it's own people, because they will seduct them, and they will surely keep hostages.

de Gaulle, with his call to the Resistance, gave to some crazy communists all the rights. They killed a lot of people, but not so much Germans, who were as innocent as the others by the way, mostly collabos. That's not his biggest mistake, he did a lot worst, but that's not what is being discussed here.

[mOgliE]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides. I see a kind of coup d'État defying State's authority and finally win because of more power and no fear to do war. Then can either have a far-right government, created by the same people as bedhind the coup d'État taking over France or keep splitting it.

Japan wanted to end war, but not at no condition like the USA wanted, so they killed 200 000+ innocent civilians to don't have to agree with the Japanese. This is what is called terrorism, or killing civilians in order to exerce political pressure, like the General de Gaulle did during the WW2, or like they did for the 11/9. This time, this was even worst, because this was against their own people. But nothing stop the American devils...

De Gaulle did this? I'm interested please tell me more.

Well if France is divided it'll be all a question of which part gets the army.
But there is 0chance something like this happens. People are too lazy. French live an easy life without even knowing their luck. And they get raped by capital and banks without saying anything.
No, the people will be too glad to be manipulated again and spit on terrorism (which is an insignificant threat) and migrants (which are no threat at all).

People are too dumb. They won't fight for what is right.

I see something like a coalition of far-right people from all the Europe uniting themselves and taking a city by night, in an isolated part of France, like the Jura. The army would never fire on it's own people, because they will seduct them, and they will surely keep hostages.

de Gaulle, with his call to the Resistance, gave to some crazy communists all the rights. They killed a lot of people, but not so much Germans, who were as innocent as the others by the way, mostly collabos. That's not his biggest mistake, he did a lot worst, but that's not what is being discussed here.

Sure but in the end they would lose their support and then a good old siege would finish them and starve them to death :-/

Oh your talking about that. It's really different. My grandfather was in the Resistance and told me a lot of things about the Liberation. Imagine a country that suffered for 5 years and without any Justice instituion working. There was no justice, so the people made it themselves, and the people Justice is mostly revenge.
I don't think it was a mistake, it was a necessity. It was to purge the hate and the pain of France. It was not glorious, but it couldn't be avoided. For a few days there was no police, no army, how could have De Gaulle be able to enforce the law in the whole country while crushing the last German ligns?

I don't see what you're refering to by "other mistakes". De Gaulle was not perfect, but he was by far the best leader France had since Napoleon.

[Losvienleg]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides. I see a kind of coup d'État defying State's authority and finally win because of more power and no fear to do war. Then can either have a far-right government, created by the same people as bedhind the coup d'État taking over France or keep splitting it.

Japan wanted to end war, but not at no condition like the USA wanted, so they killed 200 000+ innocent civilians to don't have to agree with the Japanese. This is what is called terrorism, or killing civilians in order to exerce political pressure, like the General de Gaulle did during the WW2, or like they did for the 11/9. This time, this was even worst, because this was against their own people. But nothing stop the American devils...

De Gaulle did this? I'm interested please tell me more.

Well if France is divided it'll be all a question of which part gets the army.
But there is 0chance something like this happens. People are too lazy. French live an easy life without even knowing their luck. And they get raped by capital and banks without saying anything.
No, the people will be too glad to be manipulated again and spit on terrorism (which is an insignificant threat) and migrants (which are no threat at all).

People are too dumb. They won't fight for what is right.

I see something like a coalition of far-right people from all the Europe uniting themselves and taking a city by night, in an isolated part of France, like the Jura. The army would never fire on it's own people, because they will seduct them, and they will surely keep hostages.

de Gaulle, with his call to the Resistance, gave to some crazy communists all the rights. They killed a lot of people, but not so much Germans, who were as innocent as the others by the way, mostly collabos. That's not his biggest mistake, he did a lot worst, but that's not what is being discussed here.

Sure but in the end they would lose their support and then a good old siege would finish them and starve them to death :-/

Oh your talking about that. It's really different. My grandfather was in the Resistance and told me a lot of things about the Liberation. Imagine a country that suffered for 5 years and without any Justice instituion working. There was no justice, so the people made it themselves, and the people Justice is mostly revenge.
I don't think it was a mistake, it was a necessity. It was to purge the hate and the pain of France. It was not glorious, but it couldn't be avoided. For a few days there was no police, no army, how could have De Gaulle be able to enforce the law in the whole country while crushing the last German ligns?

I don't see what you're refering to by "other mistakes". De Gaulle was not perfect, but he was by far the best leader France had since Napoleon.

I didn't know where you lived, but where my grand-father grew up, all was cool. Even if he didn't agree with the actual government, it was the legitimate government chose by the people. If I killed Flamby, and stupid neo-collabo pro-socialist, I would go to jail, but what's good is that I would maybe left it after 7 months ... Our Justice institutions aren't working. If someone enter in my house with a gun, I can't kill him if it did not shot on me before ! What the fuck ?! Policemen are frightened to use their weapons against savage ZUP racailles. Firefighters receive rocks on their head and then they got blamed because they did not helped them.

de Gaulle, the best since Napoléon ?! Tu rigoles j'espère ! What de Gaulle did so far : creation of the Vème République, which is the worst, and the lose of all our colonies ! I wouldn't call him a great president then ...

[mOgliE]

Sure but in the end they would lose their support and then a good old siege would finish them and starve them to death :-/

Oh your talking about that. It's really different. My grandfather was in the Resistance and told me a lot of things about the Liberation. Imagine a country that suffered for 5 years and without any Justice instituion working. There was no justice, so the people made it themselves, and the people Justice is mostly revenge.
I don't think it was a mistake, it was a necessity. It was to purge the hate and the pain of France. It was not glorious, but it couldn't be avoided. For a few days there was no police, no army, how could have De Gaulle be able to enforce the law in the whole country while crushing the last German ligns?

I don't see what you're refering to by "other mistakes". De Gaulle was not perfect, but he was by far the best leader France had since Napoleon.

I didn't know where you lived, but where my grand-father grew up, all was cool. Even if he didn't agree with the actual government, it was the legitimate government chose by the people. If I killed Flamby, and stupid neo-collabo pro-socialist, I would go to jail, but what's good is that I would maybe left it after 7 months ... Our Justice institutions aren't working. If someone enter in my house with a gun, I can't kill him if it did not shot on me before ! What the fuck ?! Policemen are frightened to use their weapons against savage ZUP racailles. Firefighters receive rocks on their head and then they got blamed because they did not helped them.

de Gaulle, the best since Napoléon ?! Tu rigoles j'espère ! What de Gaulle did so far : creation of the Vème République, which is the worst, and the lose of all our colonies ! I wouldn't call him a great president then ...

Our Justice institution are perfectly fine and in the case your giving you wouldn't go to prison, you would be judged innocent because of legitime defense, some cases like this already happened and there was no jailtime. The law is here to protect the citizen in broad cases but very perticular cases like the one you're giving are judged by a citizen jury which wouldn't find you guilty

Ok seems like I see the problem, you're an old conservateur and I'm a progressist Socialist (a real socialist, me confonds pas avec ces sous merdes du PS qui se disent de Gauche alors qu'ils sont encore plus à droite que Sarkozy qui est pourtant quasiment aussi à droite que Marine!!!)
De Gaulle created the V which was the best that could be done given current technology (though it's totally shit now and should be replace) he was a visionnaire and gave us energy independance but also fought to regain our political status and independance. He gave us enough power to be side by side with USA and refuse OTAN. He built the EU and hence the century of peace that followed.
He lost the colonies? The colonies were already lost since WWI!!! We used the colonies in WWI like fresh meat without ever rewarding them. If we wanted to keep the colonies we should have let them as French official regions after WWI giving French citizenship and same rights after. After all, they had the duties, why not giving them the rights?

[Losvienleg]

Sure but in the end they would lose their support and then a good old siege would finish them and starve them to death :-/

Oh your talking about that. It's really different. My grandfather was in the Resistance and told me a lot of things about the Liberation. Imagine a country that suffered for 5 years and without any Justice instituion working. There was no justice, so the people made it themselves, and the people Justice is mostly revenge.
I don't think it was a mistake, it was a necessity. It was to purge the hate and the pain of France. It was not glorious, but it couldn't be avoided. For a few days there was no police, no army, how could have De Gaulle be able to enforce the law in the whole country while crushing the last German ligns?

I don't see what you're refering to by "other mistakes". De Gaulle was not perfect, but he was by far the best leader France had since Napoleon.

I didn't know where you lived, but where my grand-father grew up, all was cool. Even if he didn't agree with the actual government, it was the legitimate government chose by the people. If I killed Flamby, and stupid neo-collabo pro-socialist, I would go to jail, but what's good is that I would maybe left it after 7 months ... Our Justice institutions aren't working. If someone enter in my house with a gun, I can't kill him if it did not shot on me before ! What the fuck ?! Policemen are frightened to use their weapons against savage ZUP racailles. Firefighters receive rocks on their head and then they got blamed because they did not helped them.

de Gaulle, the best since Napoléon ?! Tu rigoles j'espère ! What de Gaulle did so far : creation of the Vème République, which is the worst, and the lose of all our colonies ! I wouldn't call him a great president then ...

Our Justice institution are perfectly fine and in the case your giving you wouldn't go to prison, you would be judged innocent because of legitime defense, some cases like this already happened and there was no jailtime. The law is here to protect the citizen in broad cases but very perticular cases like the one you're giving are judged by a citizen jury which wouldn't find you guilty

Ok seems like I see the problem, you're an old conservateur and I'm a progressist Socialist (a real socialist, me confonds pas avec ces sous merdes du PS qui se disent de Gauche alors qu'ils sont encore plus à droite que Sarkozy qui est pourtant quasiment aussi à droite que Marine!!!)
De Gaulle created the V which was the best that could be done given current technology (though it's totally shit now and should be replace) he was a visionnaire and gave us energy independance but also fought to regain our political status and independance. He gave us enough power to be side by side with USA and refuse OTAN. He built the EU and hence the century of peace that followed.
He lost the colonies? The colonies were already lost since WWI!!! We used the colonies in WWI like fresh meat without ever rewarding them. If we wanted to keep the colonies we should have let them as French official regions after WWI giving French citizenship and same rights after. After all, they had the duties, why not giving them the rights?

Like you will be suprised to I don't dislike your side. I only hate two parties, the Front National and the PS. I still see the PS as a leftist party, but more center-left than true leftist. The same goes for the UMP (quel nom à la con Les Républicains, ils n'auraient pas pu prendre un truc du genre Parti Républicain, ce que je dis ne veux rien dire pour quelqu'un qui n'est pas français), Les Républicains, which is a center-right party. Front National is a right party, and there's no real far-right party.

In the case of the thief, if you have a weapon, you're already a rebel, since this sould be avoided at any cost to let our unefficient Police Municipale protect us ! Now let's say that the guy who came to stole you is black, and wasn't armed, like you. He takes a chair to protect himself against you and you think that he'll beat you, and this is you who beat him and you pop his eye. Then YOU go  to jail because you're a bad racist that injuried the poor hungry thief.

You can't give the colonies the same statut as a French region, because then they could emmigrate to France, where the life is by far better, and then we're screwed up again ...

[mOgliE]

Sure but in the end they would lose their support and then a good old siege would finish them and starve them to death :-/

Oh your talking about that. It's really different. My grandfather was in the Resistance and told me a lot of things about the Liberation. Imagine a country that suffered for 5 years and without any Justice instituion working. There was no justice, so the people made it themselves, and the people Justice is mostly revenge.
I don't think it was a mistake, it was a necessity. It was to purge the hate and the pain of France. It was not glorious, but it couldn't be avoided. For a few days there was no police, no army, how could have De Gaulle be able to enforce the law in the whole country while crushing the last German ligns?

I don't see what you're refering to by "other mistakes". De Gaulle was not perfect, but he was by far the best leader France had since Napoleon.

I didn't know where you lived, but where my grand-father grew up, all was cool. Even if he didn't agree with the actual government, it was the legitimate government chose by the people. If I killed Flamby, and stupid neo-collabo pro-socialist, I would go to jail, but what's good is that I would maybe left it after 7 months ... Our Justice institutions aren't working. If someone enter in my house with a gun, I can't kill him if it did not shot on me before ! What the fuck ?! Policemen are frightened to use their weapons against savage ZUP racailles. Firefighters receive rocks on their head and then they got blamed because they did not helped them.

de Gaulle, the best since Napoléon ?! Tu rigoles j'espère ! What de Gaulle did so far : creation of the Vème République, which is the worst, and the lose of all our colonies ! I wouldn't call him a great president then ...

Our Justice institution are perfectly fine and in the case your giving you wouldn't go to prison, you would be judged innocent because of legitime defense, some cases like this already happened and there was no jailtime. The law is here to protect the citizen in broad cases but very perticular cases like the one you're giving are judged by a citizen jury which wouldn't find you guilty

Ok seems like I see the problem, you're an old conservateur and I'm a progressist Socialist (a real socialist, me confonds pas avec ces sous merdes du PS qui se disent de Gauche alors qu'ils sont encore plus à droite que Sarkozy qui est pourtant quasiment aussi à droite que Marine!!!)
De Gaulle created the V which was the best that could be done given current technology (though it's totally shit now and should be replace) he was a visionnaire and gave us energy independance but also fought to regain our political status and independance. He gave us enough power to be side by side with USA and refuse OTAN. He built the EU and hence the century of peace that followed.
He lost the colonies? The colonies were already lost since WWI!!! We used the colonies in WWI like fresh meat without ever rewarding them. If we wanted to keep the colonies we should have let them as French official regions after WWI giving French citizenship and same rights after. After all, they had the duties, why not giving them the rights?

Like you will be suprised to I don't dislike your side. I only hate two parties, the Front National and the PS. I still see the PS as a leftist party, but more center-left than true leftist. The same goes for the UMP (quel nom à la con Les Républicains, ils n'auraient pas pu prendre un truc du genre Parti Républicain, ce que je dis ne veux rien dire pour quelqu'un qui n'est pas français), Les Républicains, which is a center-right party. Front National is a right party, and there's no real far-right party.

In the case of the thief, if you have a weapon, you're already a rebel, since this sould be avoided at any cost to let our unefficient Police Municipale protect us ! Now let's say that the guy who came to stole you is black, and wasn't armed, like you. He takes a chair to protect himself against you and you think that he'll beat you, and this is you who beat him and you pop his eye. Then YOU go  to jail because you're a bad racist that injuried the poor hungry thief.

You can't give the colonies the same statut as a French region, because then they could emmigrate to France, where the life is by far better, and then we're screwed up again ...

Ah ooooooooooooooooooook!
You're an American in fact ^^

So you would dominate a region and use the people and the ressources in there without giving them the same right as the metropolitan citizens?
And you think that immigration is a real threat I bet xD