Mike Irwin
Member
I love Ann Coulter!
Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally'
- Thread starter sixgun_symphony
- Start date
- Status
Foghornl: Nope, milsurp wouldn't be much good to us. The French have not fielded a decent weapon since the Charleville imho. Incidentally, the Charleville is what we used in the revolution and spawned our early Springfield muskets up thru the 1850s which were patterned cloesly after the Charleville (69 caliber).
WilderBill
Member
Ahh gee, ya mean we gotta go to war without our "allies" France?
Isn't that like going hunting and forgetting to take along an accordian?
Isn't that like going hunting and forgetting to take along an accordian?
Vladimir Berkov
Member
The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Now that Powell's speech at the UN discredited evertyhing Vladimir has whined about for the last year or so, he's got to whine about something.
DeltaElite
Member
Don't worry, Vlad has plenty of topics to whine needlessly about.
Vladimir Berkov
Member
Lol, perhaps.
I am just getting sick of the anti-France sentiments on this forum and many others I visit.
This goes from saying that the US won WW1 and saved France from defeat (which is certainly not true.) To saying that they surrendered in WW2 instead of fighting.
In terms of Iraq, why on earth SHOULD France support us?
France has no military reason to get rid of Saddam. He simply isn't a threat to France, or the rest of Europe for that matter. France certainly has no economic reason either, as they use far less oil than we do, and are less sensitive to price changes. Nor do they have any political reason to do so. French culture has a great deal to do with this. The French, by their nature aren't one to impulsively act. They need to be presented with a detailed history of the problem, extensive logical reasoning as to why the proposed action should be taken, etc. Bush's idea that the reasons for invasion are a forgone conclusion doesn't fly in France. That is probably why most French are in favor of more inspections. They don't think Bush has made any case for war.
I am just getting sick of the anti-France sentiments on this forum and many others I visit.
This goes from saying that the US won WW1 and saved France from defeat (which is certainly not true.) To saying that they surrendered in WW2 instead of fighting.
In terms of Iraq, why on earth SHOULD France support us?
France has no military reason to get rid of Saddam. He simply isn't a threat to France, or the rest of Europe for that matter. France certainly has no economic reason either, as they use far less oil than we do, and are less sensitive to price changes. Nor do they have any political reason to do so. French culture has a great deal to do with this. The French, by their nature aren't one to impulsively act. They need to be presented with a detailed history of the problem, extensive logical reasoning as to why the proposed action should be taken, etc. Bush's idea that the reasons for invasion are a forgone conclusion doesn't fly in France. That is probably why most French are in favor of more inspections. They don't think Bush has made any case for war.
Mike Irwin
Member
Answer this, Vlad.
Given France's well-documented sentiments, why would you expect anything BUT anti-French tendancies here?
No, the United States didn't win WW I for France. But it's well documented that American entry into the war, and the weight that American troops and supplies threw against the Germans in late 1917 and 1918 went a LONG way toward showing the Germans that the war was unwinnable, with the result that it ended in a political settlement instead of a total destruction of Germany.
Another interesting point is that France also lost WW I. Sure, it tacitly was a victory, but WW I is a casebook study in what constitutes a Phyrric Victory. France was left badly broken by the war.
Even worse, France's hard-line attitude toward Germany directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler, while French and British appeasement activities in the 1930s gave Hitler the indication that both nations would simply roll over in the face of German agression.
Here's an inconvenient little fact about France and the United States in WW II.
After the fall of France, those French armies that went into the field, and which landed and fought in Europe during the war, were equipped and supplied almost exclusively with American material.
Several times during the war the French military structure showed its appreciation by threatening to diverge from the overall Western Allied war plan in Europe, to the point where De Gaulle and Eisenhower had several VERY cold meetings.
Eisenhower, time and time again, prevailed against the French inclination to break the Allied line and veer off on their own in a very effective manner -- toe the unified Allied line, or equip your own troops.
After the war, and well into the 1950 and possibly even into the 1960s, the United States stood by France through its political, economic, and military turmoils.
Starting almost immediately after the war, who provided over $2.7 BILLION dollars for the rebuilding of a shatter French nation? Gee, it wouldn't have been the United States, now would it have been? Whoops, it would have been!
When the French economy threatened to collapse in the 1950s, who propped up the French economy with additional emergency loans? The United States.
When France got in over its head in Indochina, who took over its involvement after Dien Bien Phu? Yep, the United States, which put in troops that ended up protecting the French expatriots who decided to stay.
During the same time, who was footing virtually every penny of France's military bill, both domestic and foreign? Yep, the United States.
Throughout the past 50 years, what has the prevailing attitude of the French government and French intellectual community been towards the United States?
Warm and friendly?
Or cold and abusive?
So tell me, Vlad, for all the appreciation the French have shown the United States in the past 5 decades, and which they continue to show to the United States today, why the
should we have anything by the greatest disdain for an overblown, overinflated nation that hasn't been relevant to world affairs for nearly 100 years?
Tell me, were the Algerian Arab communists, or the Viet Mihn, a threat to the United States?
Nope.
Yet we toed the French line and assisted with military and economic aid.
We took the French side in the United Nations and in the court of world opinion time and time again.
For what reason? We had no compelling interests in Algeria OR Indochina when the French wereing things up so badly.
French culture has a LOT to do with the disdain that a lot of Americans feel for them. I've spent more than my fair share of time in France, and really never care to go back again. I spoke the language fairly well, did everything I could do to avoid being seen as the "typical ugly American," and it made no difference to many of the French I came across.
In 1985 the French detonated a mine under the Rainbow Warrior because Greenpeace took umbrage with France's nuclear testing, and tried to claim national interests were being preserved by sinking a delapidated ship manned by essentially hippies in a harbor half-way around the world.
In 1986, less than a year later, the United States requested permission to fly through French airspace to carry out a legitimate military strike against Libyian military targets for Libyan assistance in bombings that killed American citizens in Germany.
France, in their finest form, denied that permission.
Sorry about that errant bomb on your embassy,*****. Guess you should have painted a huge peace sign on it and called it the Rainbow Embassy.
the French. them and their overblown estimation of themselves and their role in the world.
The French have a "poor, beset upon me" attitude that puts everything that the Soviets could ever come up with to shame.
Given France's well-documented sentiments, why would you expect anything BUT anti-French tendancies here?
No, the United States didn't win WW I for France. But it's well documented that American entry into the war, and the weight that American troops and supplies threw against the Germans in late 1917 and 1918 went a LONG way toward showing the Germans that the war was unwinnable, with the result that it ended in a political settlement instead of a total destruction of Germany.
Another interesting point is that France also lost WW I. Sure, it tacitly was a victory, but WW I is a casebook study in what constitutes a Phyrric Victory. France was left badly broken by the war.
Even worse, France's hard-line attitude toward Germany directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler, while French and British appeasement activities in the 1930s gave Hitler the indication that both nations would simply roll over in the face of German agression.
Here's an inconvenient little fact about France and the United States in WW II.
After the fall of France, those French armies that went into the field, and which landed and fought in Europe during the war, were equipped and supplied almost exclusively with American material.
Several times during the war the French military structure showed its appreciation by threatening to diverge from the overall Western Allied war plan in Europe, to the point where De Gaulle and Eisenhower had several VERY cold meetings.
Eisenhower, time and time again, prevailed against the French inclination to break the Allied line and veer off on their own in a very effective manner -- toe the unified Allied line, or equip your own troops.
After the war, and well into the 1950 and possibly even into the 1960s, the United States stood by France through its political, economic, and military turmoils.
Starting almost immediately after the war, who provided over $2.7 BILLION dollars for the rebuilding of a shatter French nation? Gee, it wouldn't have been the United States, now would it have been? Whoops, it would have been!
When the French economy threatened to collapse in the 1950s, who propped up the French economy with additional emergency loans? The United States.
When France got in over its head in Indochina, who took over its involvement after Dien Bien Phu? Yep, the United States, which put in troops that ended up protecting the French expatriots who decided to stay.
During the same time, who was footing virtually every penny of France's military bill, both domestic and foreign? Yep, the United States.
Throughout the past 50 years, what has the prevailing attitude of the French government and French intellectual community been towards the United States?
Warm and friendly?
Or cold and abusive?
So tell me, Vlad, for all the appreciation the French have shown the United States in the past 5 decades, and which they continue to show to the United States today, why the
should we have anything by the greatest disdain for an overblown, overinflated nation that hasn't been relevant to world affairs for nearly 100 years? Tell me, were the Algerian Arab communists, or the Viet Mihn, a threat to the United States?
Nope.
Yet we toed the French line and assisted with military and economic aid.
We took the French side in the United Nations and in the court of world opinion time and time again.
For what reason? We had no compelling interests in Algeria OR Indochina when the French were
ing things up so badly. French culture has a LOT to do with the disdain that a lot of Americans feel for them. I've spent more than my fair share of time in France, and really never care to go back again. I spoke the language fairly well, did everything I could do to avoid being seen as the "typical ugly American," and it made no difference to many of the French I came across.
In 1985 the French detonated a mine under the Rainbow Warrior because Greenpeace took umbrage with France's nuclear testing, and tried to claim national interests were being preserved by sinking a delapidated ship manned by essentially hippies in a harbor half-way around the world.
In 1986, less than a year later, the United States requested permission to fly through French airspace to carry out a legitimate military strike against Libyian military targets for Libyan assistance in bombings that killed American citizens in Germany.
France, in their finest form, denied that permission.
Sorry about that errant bomb on your embassy,
*****. Guess you should have painted a huge peace sign on it and called it the Rainbow Embassy. the French. them and their overblown estimation of themselves and their role in the world.The French have a "poor, beset upon me" attitude that puts everything that the Soviets could ever come up with to shame.
DeltaElite
Member
I like French Bread and Croissants.
There, I said something nice about the French.
There, I said something nice about the French.
Vladimir Berkov
Member
My point is that many Americans seem to think that America not only won the war, but that the France did nothing and pretty much just waited for the Americans to show up do their dirty work for them. The French had millions of casualties during the war, far in excess of American casualities. America didn't do anything for France until 1917, and even then entered only because of that idiot Wilson.
And? What is the alternative? Should they have just given up? They didn't start the bloody war, so even if the price of fighting is was high, it was at least marginally better than defeat.
England was just as at fault for the Versailles treaty, and Wilson again screwed up the negotiations which meant that the treaty in the end was almost certain to lead to war again. France and Britain HAD to give in to Hitlers European demands, they simply couldn't fight him themselves. Neither had the military or the resources for such a war.
And? Your point? All the free forces of different European nations fought mainly with US or British equipment out of simple necessity. It is hard to use your own equipment when your country is occupied by the enemy.
And? The French are grateful for the American liberation and assistance. But this has nothing to do with Iraq, unless you expect that the French should be mere American puppets because the Americans bailed them out once. The French could simply say that without their support, America would never even be a country (which is very true.)
I hardly think you can blame Vietnam on the French. That was an entirely American farce.
Neither. The French like to see their nation as independant and important. As I said, they are grateful for US liberation, but they see American cultural imperialism taking over their country, and France becoming a third-rate power with no say in world affairs.
I don't know what you did, but I have also spent much time in France and have never had that problem. The French culture is much, much more subtle than the American, so it is very easy for them to peg someone as a foreigner. You have the right to your own opinions, but I guess I have had completely opposite experiences from you. I also talk to many French people who are living in the US on a regular basis, and have yet to see the attitude you are talking about.
556A2
Member
The point of an "ally" is to "help" others. So France can sit there and eat pastries, we will probably be better off without them. Mike, good post also
Didn't ya'll know? They're run by Eisenhower High School Music Department now!
My favorite snip (France asking for help from President Bush)
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush vowed to "immediately send Secretary of State Powell to the United Nations to request the scheduling of a vote for the formulation of a committee to create an investigative team, at the earliest possible convenience."
My favorite snip (France asking for help from President Bush)
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush vowed to "immediately send Secretary of State Powell to the United Nations to request the scheduling of a vote for the formulation of a committee to create an investigative team, at the earliest possible convenience."
Mike Irwin
Member
"My point is that many Americans seem to think that America not only won the war, but that the France did nothing and pretty much just waited for the Americans to show up do their dirty work for them."
And many French see things in reverse, Vladimir.
The (bow heads reverently) Maquis won the ENTIRE Second World War!
France was GLORIOUSLY VICTORIOUS in World War I!
Americans? They sat at home and did NOTHING! NOTHING!
Revisionist history is alive and well in France too, Vlad.
"And? What is the alternative? Should they have just given up? They didn't start the bloody war, so even if the price of fighting is was high, it was at least marginally better than defeat."
No, Vlad, the alternative is to give credit where credit is due, take lumps where lumps are due, and to NOT try to make the whole thing into something that it wasn't, which was a Glorious French Victory.
The Franco-Prussian War of 1871 was more of a freaking victory because the Prussian overran France so quickly. There wasn't time to bleed France dry.
"Wilson screwed up the negotiations..."
Given the attitude of France, and less so Britain, the negotiations were COMPLETELY hosed from the start. The result would have been exactly the same had Wilson not even entered into the negotiations.
Absolutely do NOT try to pin this on Wilson. The only reason the United States was there in the first place was because Europe couldn't handle it's own affairs. God, that's a consistent refrain from the 20th century.
"And? Your point?"
The point, which whizzed over your head, is that French troops gained what little glory they did in World War II in large part because of the material generosity of the United States, and then repaid that generosity by trying several times to derail the Allied war plans. With friends like that, who needs the Germans?
"And? The French are grateful for the American liberation and assistance."
Oh? Kind of hard to get that impression from Le Monde, or from the French Socialists. Their "gratitude" comes in the form of sneers.
"I hardly think you can blame Vietnam on the French. That was an entirely American farce."
Do you have ANY clue about the history of the French, as in FRANCE, in Indochina?
Do you have any clue as to what most of the French troops were wearing when they evacuated French Indochina? American uniforms, carrying American guns, and supported by American aircraft.
The United States inherited a COMPLETELY screwed up situation from the French, and made the same mistake that the French made in getting involved in it.
But don't for a SECOND try to say that Vietnam was an American only show.
And what does this have to do with Iraq?
You're the one who asked WHY Americans hate the French.
I've explained to you why.
There's a LOT more to it than just Iraq.
Here's a cognative exercise for you.
Take a look through the boards, and see how people talk about Germany.
Interesting thing is that they were the enemy TWICE in the 20th century, and I'd be very comfortable in saying that Americans feel a LOT more kindly towards the Bloody Hun than they do towards the Friendly French.
Even now Germany isn't catching NEARLY the heat that the French are.
Ever wonder why that is?
Could it be because the Germans have proven to be better allies than the French, even when they were the enemy?
And many French see things in reverse, Vladimir.
The (bow heads reverently) Maquis won the ENTIRE Second World War!
France was GLORIOUSLY VICTORIOUS in World War I!
Americans? They sat at home and did NOTHING! NOTHING!
Revisionist history is alive and well in France too, Vlad.
"And? What is the alternative? Should they have just given up? They didn't start the bloody war, so even if the price of fighting is was high, it was at least marginally better than defeat."
No, Vlad, the alternative is to give credit where credit is due, take lumps where lumps are due, and to NOT try to make the whole thing into something that it wasn't, which was a Glorious French Victory.
The Franco-Prussian War of 1871 was more of a freaking victory because the Prussian overran France so quickly. There wasn't time to bleed France dry.
"Wilson screwed up the negotiations..."
Given the attitude of France, and less so Britain, the negotiations were COMPLETELY hosed from the start. The result would have been exactly the same had Wilson not even entered into the negotiations.
Absolutely do NOT try to pin this on Wilson. The only reason the United States was there in the first place was because Europe couldn't handle it's own affairs. God, that's a consistent refrain from the 20th century.
"And? Your point?"
The point, which whizzed over your head, is that French troops gained what little glory they did in World War II in large part because of the material generosity of the United States, and then repaid that generosity by trying several times to derail the Allied war plans. With friends like that, who needs the Germans?
"And? The French are grateful for the American liberation and assistance."
Oh? Kind of hard to get that impression from Le Monde, or from the French Socialists. Their "gratitude" comes in the form of sneers.
"I hardly think you can blame Vietnam on the French. That was an entirely American farce."
Do you have ANY clue about the history of the French, as in FRANCE, in Indochina?
Do you have any clue as to what most of the French troops were wearing when they evacuated French Indochina? American uniforms, carrying American guns, and supported by American aircraft.
The United States inherited a COMPLETELY screwed up situation from the French, and made the same mistake that the French made in getting involved in it.
But don't for a SECOND try to say that Vietnam was an American only show.
And what does this have to do with Iraq?
You're the one who asked WHY Americans hate the French.
I've explained to you why.
There's a LOT more to it than just Iraq.
Here's a cognative exercise for you.
Take a look through the boards, and see how people talk about Germany.
Interesting thing is that they were the enemy TWICE in the 20th century, and I'd be very comfortable in saying that Americans feel a LOT more kindly towards the Bloody Hun than they do towards the Friendly French.
Even now Germany isn't catching NEARLY the heat that the French are.
Ever wonder why that is?
Could it be because the Germans have proven to be better allies than the French, even when they were the enemy?
Vladimir Berkov
Member
I never said it was.
Ironically, you are correct. Wilson's insistance of being there in person severely hindered his ability to negotiate through an envoy.
Absurd. Europe WAS handling its own affaires, America just decided to get involved as it always goes. Americans never seem to remember Washington's parting warning.
I am not saying that the French didn't completely screw that up, but saying that we fought the Vietnam War because of the French is not exactly true. We could have gotten out easily early on, as the French did.
As I said, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I don't know you experiences. All I know is that my experiences in France showed a completely different story.
Mike Irwin
Member
"I never said it was."
No, Vlad, you didn't, nor did I ever claim that you did.
But you DID ask why Americans are so hostile towards the French. In your jumping around, you've lost sight of that.
I've explained to you why Americans aren't so fond of the French, and you've tried to twist the explanations away from that into directions that weren't brought up, or intended.
"Ironically, you are correct. Wilson's insistance of being there in person severely hindered his ability to negotiate through an envoy."
So I suppose, though, that Lloyd George and Clemenceau being present for the negotiations was somehow a good thing, then?
Wilson went to Paris for one reason and one reason alone -- Clemenceau and Lloyd George were also going in person as an adjunct to the treaty meetings that were going on.
Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau didn't sit in on the daily negotiations that were carried out amongst the representatives of the powers. Those WERE carried out by envoys.
The Treaty of Versailles negotiations lasted for FIVE months.
The leaders of the allied nations, including Orlando of Italy, met largely amongst themselves, and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER met with representatives of the Central powers.
Lloyd George and Clemenceau also clashed bitterly over Clemenceau's demands for a harsh peace. Lloyd George predicted that the "French peace" would result in another clash with German.
Funny thing about Clemenceau, though. He lived in the United States for a number of years, and married an American. He also considered settling permanently in the US because he was so impressed with the political structure and freedoms of the citizens.
Unfortunately, when he started his rise to power in France, he lost sight of that and became rather repressive, but that's beside the point.
In trying to make it seem as if Wilson was present daily at the negotiations between the powers, you're incorrect.
"Absurd. Europe WAS handling its own affaires, America just decided to get involved as it always goes. Americans never seem to remember Washington's parting warning."
Nice ad hominem attack there, and one without factual basis at all, Vladimir. You really need to read up on US entry into the War, which had been going on for a number of years before US entry.
Had Europe been able to handle its own political affairs, instead of devolving into a massive, and seemingly unending, war, Washington's warning never would have to have been dusted off.
The vast majority of Americans never wanted to become involved in a European action (with many, many Americans firmly believing that Germany was in the right, actually), and would have been perfectly content to let Europe burn itself into a cinder.
The true role of the Zimmerman telegram will probably never been known, whether it was actually a bona fide German offer to Mexico, but more than a little evidence exists that it was a plant by the Allied powers designed to draw the United States farther into the war.
"We could have gotten out easily early on, as the French did."
Hate to break this to you, but by the time France finally withdrew from Indochina, they had been there for nearly 100 years, and during that time largely fighting a war against separtist forces. It wasn't until the Viet Mihn coalesced in the aftermath of World War II, though, that the situation became very dicey, and eventually ruinous, for the French.
Because the Viet Mihn were Communist, it's no surprise that the United States, at this time cognizant of the growing Cold War, would take a hard-line stance against the entirety of the Vietnamese Peninsula being controlled by Communists.
American policy of the time was to counter Communism where ever it arose -- the Truman Doctrine -- and where it threatened American interests, such as in Korea and in Germany.
Now that we've had this interesting little go-round, Vladamir, let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Why should Americans be particularly friendly towards France given the French attitude of the last 50 years?
2. Why is it that Germany, and not France, has continuously been America's most important Continential ally in the last 50 years?
3. Why is it that the French decry that relationship, and yet largely did nothing to attempt to swing the situation around to a more favorable Franco-American relationship, and in fact seemed, and still seems, to take great pleasure in doing just about everything it can to sabotage strengthened Franco-American relations?
4. Why is it that French newspapers, and to a degree the French government, calls for greater US involvement in world affairs, and yet goes off the deep end condemning the United States when we do take a greater interest in world affairs? US experience in the Balkans is a good example.
No, Vlad, you didn't, nor did I ever claim that you did.
But you DID ask why Americans are so hostile towards the French. In your jumping around, you've lost sight of that.
I've explained to you why Americans aren't so fond of the French, and you've tried to twist the explanations away from that into directions that weren't brought up, or intended.
"Ironically, you are correct. Wilson's insistance of being there in person severely hindered his ability to negotiate through an envoy."
So I suppose, though, that Lloyd George and Clemenceau being present for the negotiations was somehow a good thing, then?
Wilson went to Paris for one reason and one reason alone -- Clemenceau and Lloyd George were also going in person as an adjunct to the treaty meetings that were going on.
Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau didn't sit in on the daily negotiations that were carried out amongst the representatives of the powers. Those WERE carried out by envoys.
The Treaty of Versailles negotiations lasted for FIVE months.
The leaders of the allied nations, including Orlando of Italy, met largely amongst themselves, and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER met with representatives of the Central powers.
Lloyd George and Clemenceau also clashed bitterly over Clemenceau's demands for a harsh peace. Lloyd George predicted that the "French peace" would result in another clash with German.
Funny thing about Clemenceau, though. He lived in the United States for a number of years, and married an American. He also considered settling permanently in the US because he was so impressed with the political structure and freedoms of the citizens.
Unfortunately, when he started his rise to power in France, he lost sight of that and became rather repressive, but that's beside the point.
In trying to make it seem as if Wilson was present daily at the negotiations between the powers, you're incorrect.
"Absurd. Europe WAS handling its own affaires, America just decided to get involved as it always goes. Americans never seem to remember Washington's parting warning."
Nice ad hominem attack there, and one without factual basis at all, Vladimir. You really need to read up on US entry into the War, which had been going on for a number of years before US entry.
Had Europe been able to handle its own political affairs, instead of devolving into a massive, and seemingly unending, war, Washington's warning never would have to have been dusted off.
The vast majority of Americans never wanted to become involved in a European action (with many, many Americans firmly believing that Germany was in the right, actually), and would have been perfectly content to let Europe burn itself into a cinder.
The true role of the Zimmerman telegram will probably never been known, whether it was actually a bona fide German offer to Mexico, but more than a little evidence exists that it was a plant by the Allied powers designed to draw the United States farther into the war.
"We could have gotten out easily early on, as the French did."
Hate to break this to you, but by the time France finally withdrew from Indochina, they had been there for nearly 100 years, and during that time largely fighting a war against separtist forces. It wasn't until the Viet Mihn coalesced in the aftermath of World War II, though, that the situation became very dicey, and eventually ruinous, for the French.
Because the Viet Mihn were Communist, it's no surprise that the United States, at this time cognizant of the growing Cold War, would take a hard-line stance against the entirety of the Vietnamese Peninsula being controlled by Communists.
American policy of the time was to counter Communism where ever it arose -- the Truman Doctrine -- and where it threatened American interests, such as in Korea and in Germany.
Now that we've had this interesting little go-round, Vladamir, let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Why should Americans be particularly friendly towards France given the French attitude of the last 50 years?
2. Why is it that Germany, and not France, has continuously been America's most important Continential ally in the last 50 years?
3. Why is it that the French decry that relationship, and yet largely did nothing to attempt to swing the situation around to a more favorable Franco-American relationship, and in fact seemed, and still seems, to take great pleasure in doing just about everything it can to sabotage strengthened Franco-American relations?
4. Why is it that French newspapers, and to a degree the French government, calls for greater US involvement in world affairs, and yet goes off the deep end condemning the United States when we do take a greater interest in world affairs? US experience in the Balkans is a good example.
suvdrvr
Member
France has agreed to be rude to the terrorist and Iraq. That should fullfill their UN comittment. The fact of the matter is, in for a dime, in for a dollar! Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War One. If the un doesn't enforce the terms, they might as well let the US and our allies.
ZekeLuvs1911
Member
The only thing I like about the French are french fries! The French like to play games. They play their games, we play ours. We play to win though.
The French like to play games. They play their games, we play ours. We play to win though.Vladimir Berkov
Member
There was never any good reason for the United States to get involved in WW1. The nations of Europe, whether they were fighting a world war or not, were not really threatening the United States, not were there any US issues involved, except perhaps free trade which was being hindered by the British, not the Germans. We could have easily stayed out of the war, with no ill effects to us. How the Europeans resolved it is there problem, and I can hardly think of a worse way it could have been resolved.
No idea.
Probably because Germany allows the US to us their country as a big military base.
Ehhh, not really. The problem is that Americans assume that France will tow the American line and the French seem to react to that more than anything else.
No idea.
No idea.
Probably because Germany allows the US to us their country as a big military base.
Ehhh, not really. The problem is that Americans assume that France will tow the American line and the French seem to react to that more than anything else.
No idea.
Shalako
Member
"I scratch your back, you scratch mine."
That goes a little beyond a mere semblance of gratitude. As Don Corleone says, "I may at some time have to call on you for a favor." When ever we call on that favor, they turn up their noses and say they will not be our puppet.
We need nothing from the French. Ever again. They do not exist. Unless they want to be our enemy, and then we should be more than happy to oblige.
That goes a little beyond a mere semblance of gratitude. As Don Corleone says, "I may at some time have to call on you for a favor." When ever we call on that favor, they turn up their noses and say they will not be our puppet.
We need nothing from the French. Ever again. They do not exist. Unless they want to be our enemy, and then we should be more than happy to oblige.
I don't HATE the French. I would have to hate myself. What I hate is their asinine behavior on the world stage and their snotty little kid attitude displayed to visitors who don't happen to speak French well enough to their way of thinking.
Vladimir Berkov
Member
I have found that the mere effort of trying to speak French goes a long way. I am not fluent yet, but the simple fact that I tried to converse in the language I think helped a great deal.
Col. Mustard
Member
A thousand or so passengers on the Lusitania might have argued this point...
Vladimir Berkov
Member
The Lusitania was a British vessel flying under British colours, and which had been officially requisitioned by the British government for war duties. There is also strong circumstantial evidence that it was carrying munitions.
Only 118 Americans died, not a thousand, and in any case they were taking an obvious chance by getting on board when Germany was already using unrestricted submarine warfare.
When you are in a foreign country that is at war (or a foreign ship) you must accept the risks inherent in such a choice.
Only 118 Americans died, not a thousand, and in any case they were taking an obvious chance by getting on board when Germany was already using unrestricted submarine warfare.
When you are in a foreign country that is at war (or a foreign ship) you must accept the risks inherent in such a choice.
- Status