France’s President Behaves Like A Dictator...

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 12:08 AM

02/09/13: President Hollande is constitutionally able to order an attack without parliamentary approval.
French MPs are due to debate the issue in an extraordinary session of parliament on Wednesday. However, Mr Ayrault has ruled out a vote.

I wonder if this “Beloved Unpopular Leader” Has learnt any “lessons” from Britain's government which let the inconvenient institution called parliamentary Democracy, intervene against bombing “freedom” into Syria’s people?

Most French people do not want France to take part in military action on Syria and most do not trust French President Francois Hollande to do so, a poll showed on Saturday.

I Wonder…
If president Hollande orders his recession hit France into attacking Syria, is there any possibility (even if only decades into the future) that his ideological opponents will have the then x-president Hollande trailed, as a war criminal for getting militarily involved without U.N approval (something Tony Blair avoided through Resolution 1441

He certainly has the propaganda of one in the form of a Dodgy Dossier…

France says the chemical attack near Damascus last month "could not have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government".
A report presented to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault says the assault on 21 August involved the "massive use of chemical agents".

Earlier Russian analysis showed the chemical agent used in one attack was not factory made…

10/07/2013: Evidence studied by Russian scientists indicates that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, Churkin pointed out.
“It was determined that on March 19 the rebels fired an unguided missile Bashair-3 at the town of Khan al-Assal, which has been under government control. The results of the analysis clearly show that the shell used in Khan al-Assal was not factory made and that it contained sarin,” he said.
Churkin added that the contents of the shell “didn’t contain chemical stabilizers in the toxic substance,” and therefore “is not a standard chemical charge.” The RDX - an explosive nitroamine commonly used for industrial and military applications - found in the warhead was not consistent with what the armed forces use. Russia Today

So I wonder whether Frances dossier conducted any such analysis? Certainly none I’m not as yet aware of, despite looking at bits of their propaganda document on Google Translate.

On the Bright Side: I Might Be wrong…
Apparently it’s morally desirable for recession hit France to kill, since the targeted people will be Assad’s conscripted soldiers –people actually engaged in fighting a bunch of religious fighters calling themselves “Rebels” but whose fighters (people actually on the ground) have little motivation-focus on Western liberalism, yet are instead united in war because: Assad’s a Shiite, and they’re Sunni Muslim (many of whose branches are fanatical enough to literally be Al-Qaeda).

Please Note…
Rebels Have Long Possessed Chemicals Weapons…

16/12/12: Last week, fighters from a group that the Obama administration has branded a terrorist organization were among rebels who seized the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, where research on chemical weapons had been conducted. Rebels are also closing in on another base near Aleppo, known as Safirah, which has served as a major production center for such munitions, according to U.S. officials and analysts.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:01 AM
No, the French President Hollande is not acting like a dictator; he’s acting like a President.

The republics removed their monarchies and replaced them with (er) a person with the powers of a monarch. The UK’s political system does not have an all-powerful head of state, so issues of state are debated and voted on.

This would be another reason why the UK’s parliamentary democracy is better than a republic. No disrespect to France and the US, but you should be more able to constrain the powers of your monarchs, ah sorry, presidents.


posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:39 AM

paaphi: The UK’s political system does not have an all-powerful head of state, so issues of state are debated and voted on.

Actually the PM (through our Queen) does have the power…
“The Prime Minister has the power to declare war as a result of the wide-ranging royal prerogative – powers held by the Queen and exercised by the government of the day.
In 2006, Mr Cameron questioned whether a prime minister should continue to be able to use the royal prerogative to declare war or sign international treaties without first consulting MPs.

But if you Google Royal Prerogative you’ll find the last time it was used, was in 2005 to deny a Gitmo prisoner a passport
The fact Cameron wants to get rid of it (despite there being no practical leader) shows what an inept constitutional tinker he is, as if parliament were attacked, we would not then be able to declare war against those responsible –no matter how clear who they are, may be.

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
How has he behaved like a dictator when he has done absolutely nothing?

posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 09:53 PM
1. He's not letting the French parliament vote on the matter because he knows they will probably (like the British one) represent their constituents by opposing the very war he craves.
2. He's using first class, government created propaganda, for making the case for war (see French report in my OP).
3. I personally doubt he even has France's-Syria's interests at heart in being on the pro-war size. I think he does it because he wants a rich a retirement, boosted with money -"jobs" from Gulf States (exactly like Blair is having).

new topics

log in