Passion51: I agree. We've got to get over it and go on.
JohnLocke: There is a world of difference between saying "that is untrue" and "your lies." "Your lies" is a flammable term.

As far as the French running away from German tanks in WWII, I do not think that is necessarily cowardly. Did they have guns to defend themselves? Did they have ammunition? Did they need to evacuate their families from a dangerous situation? And when was the last time you had to face up to invading tanks IN YOUR OWN HOMELAND?

Let's not be too hard on the French. They have had a lot more wars than we have, as colonizers AND on their own turf. Maybe they had some wisdom to share with us that we wouldn't bother to listen to.

We can be cynical about France's dealings with Iraq. But we used to deal with Iraq, too. Are we so much different from them?

[quote=Rickmanx,Jun 3 2003, 09:56 PM] As I pointed out earlier it was not 50 countries.  And only 3 of them actually sent troops  ( US, UK, and Australia )

And no I don't hate France.  If our president truly did have hard core evidence that proves that the threat was severe enought to warrant bombing the heck out of em,  France never saw it.  And that is where the problem lies.

France ( and the rest of the world ) saw:

1. Forged Nuclear Documents.
2. Reports coming in from UNMOVIC calling US intelligence tips "Garbage, after Garbage, after Garbage."
3. Almost every demand that the Weapon Inspectors had met by Iraq.
4. All neighboring countries of Iraq not feeling threatened by Saddam.
5. The Al-Samoud 2 rockets ( which went a total of ~15 miles of the allowable limit ) being destroyed.
6. Complete and total access for the weapons inspectors.
7. Turkey not allowing US Troops on its soil.
8. Hans Blix ( Team leader for UNMOVIC )  stating it would take months, not years to determine if Iraq was free of WMDs and also stating he was seeing "Real signs of Compliance."

What evidence did the Bush Administration have( that they chose to share )?  Old UNSCOM documents from an age filled with so much corruption that the group had to be disbanded and brought about UNMOVIC.

Countries should not trust and support an attack on another without SOLID evidence.  Old news from the early 90's shouldn't cut it.  The new information appeared to be baseless or forged. 

I respect France for standing up.    All  the US had to do was prove their case to the UN.  They chose not to.  And France was going by what they heard from the Weapons Inspectors as everyone on that council should of.

Maybe we had a good reason for attacking Iraq,  Maybe we didn't.  All I know is I don't blame France for taking a stand.

But they weren't alone..  as we all know. 

And what ever happened to the US's first plan of letting the second resolution be voted on and ignoring France's veto?  That is what they were originally going to do.

Rickmanx [/quote]
Spinnnn, spin, spin spiIiiIInnnnnnn

[quote]As I pointed out earlier it was not 50 countries.   And only 3 of them actually sent troops  ( US, UK, and Australia )[/quote] As always, the Polacks never get any respect.

[quote]And no I don't hate France.  If our president truly did have hard core evidence that proves that the threat was severe enought to warrant bombing the heck out of em,  France never saw it.  And that is where the problem lies.[/quote] Giving France the benefit of the doubt, eh? What convinced the Danes but not the French? Have you considered that nothing except a direct attack on French interests or a "smoking gun" would have moved the French? Remember this about smoking guns.... they only smoke AFTER they've been used.

[quote]3. Almost every demand that the Weapon Inspectors had met by Iraq.[/quote] Was this before or after the most powerful military in history was moving into place?

[quote]4. All neighboring countries of Iraq not feeling threatened by Saddam.[/quote] All? Even Kuwait? I don't recall the Kuwaitis asking the US to leave since Saddam was no longer a threat, do you?

[quote]5. The Al-Samoud 2 rockets ( which went a total of ~15 miles of the allowable limit ) being destroyed.[/quote]

Weapons which Iraq wasn't supposed to have, and which it failed to disclose in its 12,000 page "complete" disclosure.

[quote]6. Complete and total access for the weapons inspectors.[/quote] So, they had unfettered, unmonitored access to any Iraqi scientists and technicians both in Iraq and outside of Iraq? The Iraqi scientists and technicians could travel abroad with their families and talk to inspectors? The inspectors could show up unannounced at a site and enter immediately?

[quote]7. Turkey not allowing US Troops on its soil.[/quote] Turkey already had US troops on its soil, quite a few. It did not allow the US to stage ground invasion forces.

[quote]8. Hans Blix ( Team leader for UNMOVIC )  stating it would take months, not years to determine if Iraq was free of WMDs and also stating he was seeing "Real signs of Compliance."[/quote] "Signs of compliance?" Compliance is a very simple thing, in fact, its a binary thing. You're either complying, or not.

[quote]What evidence did the Bush Administration have( that they chose to share )?  Old UNSCOM documents from an age filled with so much corruption that the group had to be disbanded and brought about UNMOVIC.[/quote]

From the UN website, regarding UNSCOMs inspectors: [quote]Inspection teams consisted of personnel made available by Governments, members of the Commission, the United Nations Secretariat, and, in the nuclear field, inspectors and staff of the IAEA. [/quote] What did Blix do before UNMOVIC? oh, yeah, he headed up the IAEA.... you were saying something about corruption?

[quote]But they (France) weren't alone..  as we all know.  [/quote] France acted unilaterally, or at least as unilaterally as the United States....

Now, how does this all relate to the elevation of France to near the top of the American public's excrement list?

Americans and France have long had a love/hate relationship. French cultural elitism is very annoying to Americans, since, with the exception of their cooking and wines, the French cannot claim to be truly "the best in the world" in much of anything. (Yes, they can claim to be very good at a lot of things, but not "the best") It is a case of "they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk." Part of it is simply cultural miscommunication, but a large part of it is the grating of Old World supercilliousness upon New World ears.

The biggest reason though for the current brouhaha is this: we didn't expect it. From the perspective of many Americans, France has betrayed us. A veto from Russia? "Hey, Putin's an old KGB guy, what do you expect?" Veto from China? No surprises there. France decides to sit it out? Okay, we can respect that. But the active hardcore opposition has been seen as a betrayal.

There's lots of talk here and elsewhere about how "Bush mishandled" the world opinion. Well, here's something to think about: the "world" has grossly miscalculated American opinion. Under Clinton, the French likely would have succeeded in stopping the US. Under Bush Sr, probably. Under GW, pre 9-11, probably. Things here really have changed in the sense that we are not going to put our security into the hands of others, and that's what the French and others have demanded that we do.

The French gov't seriously miscalculated. Because of their high profile opposition combined with the sense of betrayal, they're getting the brunt of American displeasure. Is it "justifiable"?

Most of it. France worked very hard and very publicly to protect a mass murderer and supporter of terrorism. Kind of hard to square with liberte, equalite, fraternite, isn't it? Combine that with the anti-American vitriol, directed not simply at the actions of our governments, but at our culture and who we are, that has poured out of France's intellectual and cultural community for decades, and voila, the solid waste impacted upon the air circulation equipment.

I would love to but as it's off topic I asked you to make another thread if you could support it. I get in enough trouble for going off topic as it is, thanks.

With the WW2 stuff, we shouldn't be making fun of them. What's cowardly about running away from a superior military force, or surrendering to one? It's a little thing I like to call "smart."

Everybody hates the French (or supposivly hates them) because they don't know anything about war except surrender. As you said in your last post, it is smart than fighting a superior army. Or maybe it's because Chirac and his staff critisize Bush & america & American policies.

It's probably because some Americans think they are better than the French and snub their noses at them and doesn't like France telling America what it should & shouldn't do

They don't know anything about war? Even if that were true (and as I recall almost all of Europe was unequipped to handle the Nazi Blitzkriegs) France has a long military tradition that doesn't involve surrendering at every corner.



Bush and staff criticize the policy of all sorts of nations. Since when is it wrong for someone to question the actions of another, or for one state to criticize the policy of another?

What about Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, the Napoleonic wars, the American war of independence? The French won one of the most important battles in modern history at Tours in 732. Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan might be Muslims if the French didn't win the battle Of Tours.

Really? Let's see here now....who was it that came to the aid of the rebelling American colonies during the Revolution? Ah yes...of course, FRANCE. French military history is long...a lot longer than ours, just ask England. But for the really big example of how the French know more than just surrender there's someone you should speak to....I think his name is something like....Napoleon.

If the French are so cowardly why would they have gone to the UN requesting their troops be sent to the Congo? Here we are dealing with what were, at one time, docile repressed folks in Iraq and they are going off to deal with bloody cannibals in an area noteworthy for the most brutal case of ethnic cleansing. And unless they discover it while there they aren't expecting to receive a drop of oil for their trouble.

And as an additional show of one-upmanship on Bush they got backing from not only the UN but the EU in a matter of days without having to do any arm twisting or level any threats or bribes. They even got Canada to go along.

Instead of bashing France some ought to be taking notes on how much easier things would be to follow their example.

Link

Yes there were



Taken from Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council on 5th Fenruary 2003

Full text can be found at: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2729525.stm

See the last quarter of the text for the alleged links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.

Jon Bon,
And if yopu take the time to read the article I posted earlier on page three of this thread, you'll see that given the nature of al-Qaeda's dealings with Iraq....it is quite possible they did have a part in the WTC attacks.

I don't see how a transcript of a meeting that took place over 3 years prior to the WTC attacks can be considered proof of direct Iraqi involvement. In any court of law such evidence would be considered purely circumstantial, and therefore not sufficient gorunds to convict.

The point here is that France openly doubted American claims that an active link existed between Saddam and Bin Laden, or between Iraq and 9/11. They doubted these claims because America had no convincing evidence to substantiate them.

I think, therefore, that the French have come under such heavy fire from the American right because they highlighted the weakness of the American case against iraq for all the world to see.

JonBon, this would be a good argument you have, except for the fact that most likely the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even realize that. Most of them hate the French just because they want to hop on the bandwagon with people who have actual reasons to hate the French. When you ask these people who don't know anything about our relations with France, "Why do you hate them?" It's usually some dumb response about their bad military, which isn't true either.

I really don't think we should get into how they helped us out. We saved them in two wars, let's not get into them helping us once.

CP

This is the last sentence from the article link JohnLocke posted on Page 3. It doesn't sound like compelling evidence to me that Iraqi leaders were in bed with bin Laden. More supposition, that's all.

But back to the French: Nothing I (or anyone else) can say will persuade haters of the French to like them. CP doesn't want to hear what the French did for us. That makes it hard to post an argument. So I'll put it this way:

What other country in the world had the guts to help thirteen English colonies on a different continent revolt from a nation with, arguably, the world's most powerful navy?

If we snub the French and treat them like dirt, then we are doing the very thing we have accused them of doing to us. What a mature thing to do--NOT!!!

The reason why I don't want to hear about the French and all they did for us is because you would then have to take into account what we did for them, which would nullify the, "after all they've done for us" arguement.

CP

Why not? The point is, they helped us before we had ever helped them. And, they have a good military history. So, why should be be bringing them down on the issue of military and war?

The French aided us during the Revolutionary war, because the oppressive monarchy at the time wanted it. The cost of military support to the forces of George Washington in America precipitated the financial crisis which resulted in the French Revolution.

I don't hate the French, honestly, but I've been to France twice and they don't like us very much. That was before the Iraq conflict, so I shudder to imagine what it's like over there now (for an American). It sounds as though Kimpossible is having a nice time. She probably does what my former exchange student friends did when in France....they pretended to be Canadian (or French, if they were proficient enough with the language). Us ‘treating the French like dirt’ is a relatively new phenomenon. French treating us like dirt is a longstanding part of French tradition.

People seem to be mixing their histories on this thread. Either the French are brilliant warriors, or they’re cowards. Look at the military history between the two world wars. During the first they were extremely aggressive. They believed in the French fighting spirit so much that they had absolutely no concept of defense. It completely crushed them, and the Germans had almost taken over their country before they learned to dig trenches. Their aggressive stand during WWI crushed them so much they relied too heavily on defense during WWII. It was almost the opposite mentality, with the building of the Magenot (sp?) line. After their defense was overcome, they didn’t have much of an offense to rely on, and surrendered extremely quickly (they pretty much gave up rather than see Paris destroyed). I wouldn't call them cowards, by any means, but I wouldn't say their military history was exactly successful either (with the acception of the time of Napoleon, after they took over Germany- a heck of a long time ago, oui?).

Trust me, it's cowards. The monarchist french government may have helped the colonies out two hundred plus years ago but they haven't done anything in the last one hundred years. Not to mention the greedy intentions they had in backing the colonies in the first place (establish strong trade while weakening England's). Now I don't mind their greedy intentions, it's just business. But the french shouldn't EVER point a finger at the US in accusation when they are just as guilty.

And I will continue to ask the question: Why isn't this thread "why shouldn't I hate the french?"

The french are some of the most racist people in the world and their anti semitism is at an all time high when their own diplomats come out in public and renounce Jews, and then get applause. Not to mention the fact that they have despised Americans for the last sixty plus years. In fact, I say that the next time the french are surrounded on all borders because of their own INACTION, we just leave them to be conquered. It's not like it'll take too long.

You're bordering on being inflammatory, johnlocke (meaning you are provoking people without actually proving there's a reason to be provoked).

Please provide some evidence to support your claims.

Jaime,
This is hardly inflamatory. It is only one legitimate reason for my dislike of the people. Here is only one link...

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/france-html

It is only one of at least four or five that I poster under the "re-building international relationships" thread. It is quite enough for me.

Do you know anything about WW2? Do you fail to realize that they were a much less superior force than the germans? What would you do: fight suicidally or surrender? The French didn't have Tiger tanks, or panzers, or even a semi-good airforce. They didn't have the necessary weapons in order to fight! So of course they couldn't do anything then! Try reading up on some history before making hateful comments and wrong generalizations.

Giant Bean,
You're joking right? Perhaps you should look at the events leading up to WW2. Perhaps you'll find that the french were repeatedly warned about the building threat in Germany. Perhaps then you'll find that the french ignored the threat. Then you'll probably learn that france didn't bother holding Germany to any of the concessions it made after WW1. This just proves many more points about today.
1. Holding countries to their word is imperative.
2. Ignoring a threat doesn't make it go away.
3. The french either created that problem for themselves or exacerbated it by ignoring the threat.
4. Don't let it happen again.

I suppose you think Martians built the Maginot Line, eh? It might have been misguided or outdated by recently-developed German technology and tactics, but it hardly qualifies as ignoring the threat. Don't let your ethnic hatred blind you to the facts.

It was not France's fault that Germany invaded them so successfully. If Belgium had had some form of defense itself, the Maginot line would not have been bypassed so handily by the Germans.

So the French monarchy was Britain's main rival back in Revolutionary times. Yes, they had their own interests in mind when they decided to back the 13 colonies in their fight to become independent from Britain.

Do you mean to say that WE don't have our own interests in mind in the Middle East? Or are we just being nice guys?

Yes, the French have treated Americans like dirt. So many of our people (especially soldiers trying to seduce the women in exchange for food) have entered their country with no knowledge of their customs and traditions, and a seeming lack on interest in learning them. And expecting the French to drop everything and take care of them first.

We've seen that very thing here in the United States from time to time. Have we never said, "Damned foreigners" when they have shown ignorance of our customs and values? I remember one young Arab in the 80's saying, "You Americans, blah, blah, blah" about what we did, about the way American women are tramps, and then bragging that he could have 4 wives in his country. And then having the audacity to try to date us! Is that supposed to be charming?

Hate the French if you will. But know this: your bad behavior will not change their bad behavior. You are exacerbating a human problem. Collectively, we make it a national problem.

Paladin,
most of your argument is merely a repeat of what I already said. That's cool though. Your last point is the most poingant. I don't care about exacerbating this problem. We're Americans. We'll undoubtingly win as long as we remain strong. But I'll be damned if I am going to stand around and let the french government take pot shots at my country. I stood by President Clinton when the french stood against him in his resolve to attack Iraq. And I'll stand by any other American President in their efforts to secure peace....Republican or Democrat.

I use to have respect for them (the french). However since after 9.11.2001 i believe they have gone WAY downhill.

1- They limitley supported the US butring 9.11.001 infact if i remember most of the news was "us and british forces..."

2- I am a native brit but moved to america 10 years ago so its in my blood.

3- They promised along wth bush and the UN to fight terror in its tracks. and in Iraq they found this terrorism. The terrorism of killing its own people

4. They didnot support the war on iraq because they believed that it was wrong. Well let me tell you. We HAD to defeat a major enemy to free the iraqi people who were running around shoeless and poor, now iraq can rebuild to its full powers and allow FREE TRADE and Sanctions to occur. The day when iraq was invaded and baghdad fell, was the day i said that i was a proud american


Justin (jube) Holt

Funny that the germans and russians also opposed us yet the french catch all the trouble. That alone should make it obvious that this isnt just about recent events, its old school french baiting and fun for everyone ( and senseless).

Anyway, maybe we should set up a new alliance of Nations-That-Agree-With-America-At-All-Times. We could call it the iron curtain... oh, wait...

Santas,
Yes!!! That's what I'm talkin' about!!! (lol)

so many labels, its funny some groups you can speak out against some you cant, if i say i dont agree with how isreal works in the middle east i am racist, if i say i dont agree with france i am racist, if i say i dont agree with the black panters i am a racist. i would like to think that there is a line between being racist (irrational), and then makeing a point.

france had members of its goverment and people in its country that wanted to support the war in iraq, this i think is the same here in the states, some people pro others not, to say france is this or that, really holds no water because its a blanket statement. like saying all americans are oil hungry mass killers. i dont think that statement holds water, but it can be made none the less.

i would hope this thread can shed some light on that at some point.

Nile,
This thread is a long gone daddy. it is only in existence because some people have fun hating the french and others need a reason to poke at others in a hypocritical manner finding political ways to justify their own hypocrisy. I enjoy my hypocrisy. You should too.

Running around shoeless and poor? Firstly, they aren't poor. Iraq has, or had until recently, a fairly strong middle class, mostly brought upon by Saddam's economic and social reforms of the past 20 years. Secondly, Hussein was not a major enemy. The U.S. toppled his government in less than a month. Nothing major about it. Thirdly, Iraq isn't going to rebuild to its full power. The U.S. military will see to that. Fourthly, free trade will be sure to earn a few laughs at the Cheney household. Haliburton (VP Dick Cheney's oil company) was granted the first contract to begin oil exportation from Iraq. The "freed" Iraqi people had no say in it, no voice, no votes, no choice what so ever. Fifthly, did you really mean to say "sanctions?" They've had sanctions for the past 12 years and many Iraqis have suffered because of the U.N. imposed sanctions. Sixthly, the day Baghdad fell was all glory and no honor. I was ashamed to be an American that day.

The US could topple most countries in less than a month. I can think of only a handfull that would resist even that long. The key point is that we DON'T.



Aren't you ashamed EVERY day? The US isn't close to backing Marxism anytime soon.

Because Napoleon isn't going to help us win a war against a terrorsit regeme. My point is that we've helped them just as much as they'e helped us, that has nothing to do with it. What does is money, French money, and Saddam's pocket.

CP

could someone find a statistic or a link that shows how much france gains or losses in the money department siding with iraq over the u.s. being that is whats being said here, i dont think its money, i think thats to easy or a remark to make. maybe thats one part of it, like the reasons we had to attack iraq, which now of course until i see better should be called a u.s oil tanker for short. so i guess its what we had to make out of it $$$$ wise.

Whoa....golly-gee-bum....that's a knee slapper and a half. No, I am not ashamed every day. Some days I am...like the days when we knock over governments for the selfish reasons of our leaders. Some days I am proud...like the days when the press uncover a scandal in the corporate world. Some days are good, some are not so good, but most of the time I just stay hopeful that one day the U.S. will have a socially responsible democracy instead of a fascist republic.

You're not understanding this. Of course they were warned. The whole world was. Does this mean that they were necessarily going to be attacked? And even so, what does that have to do with their military? Picture yourself in their spot:
Right next to you is a great military power. They've got tanks, infantry, small arms, artillery, air forces. You have almost no military, and certainly not one equal to theirs. I'd like to see you go fight a Panzer. Or maybe you want to hop into your sissy Dewoitine fighter and go up against the Luftwaffe's BF109g-10's? Perhaps you'd like to take your little privately owned, small caliber pistol and/or rifle and go against a squad with Mauser-Kar 89's, MG34's, MG42's, Potato Mashers, and a lot more. If you think you can win in this situation then you're insane.

Bean - don't call anyone insane here unless you can certify to us that you are that member's doctor and you have a signed authorization releasing such information

Terribly sorry, Jaime . I repeal my previous statement of, "insane," and put forth a new statement of, "not thinking clearly."

[quote=AGiantBean,Jun 10 2003, 10:49 PM]You're not understanding this.  Of course they were warned.  The whole world was.  Does this mean that they were necessarily going to be attacked?  And even so, what does that have to do with their military?  Picture yourself in their spot:
Right next to you is a great military power.  They've got tanks, infantry, small arms, artillery, air forces.  You have almost no military, and certainly not one equal to theirs.  I'd like to see you go fight a Panzer.  Or maybe you want to hop into your sissy Dewoitine fighter and go up against the Luftwaffe's BF109g-10's?  Perhaps you'd like to take your little privately owned, small caliber pistol and/or rifle and go against a squad with Mauser-Kar 89's, MG34's, MG42's, Potato Mashers, and a lot more.  If you think you can win in this situation then you're insane.[/quote]
[quote=AGiantBean,Jun 8 2003, 05:32 PM][quote]Trust me, it's cowards. The monarchist french government may have helped the colonies out two hundred plus years ago but they haven't done anything in the last one hundred years.[/quote]

Do you know anything about WW2? Do you fail to realize that they were a much less superior force than the germans? What would you do: fight suicidally or surrender? The French didn't have Tiger tanks, or panzers, or even a semi-good airforce. They didn't have the necessary weapons in order to fight! So of course they couldn't do anything then! Try reading up on some history before making hateful comments and wrong generalizations.[/quote]
Apparently, you don't know as much about World War Two yourself as you think.

The French Army in 1939, when the war began, was the same size as the German Army. The French Navy was the the second most powerful navy in Europe, behind only the Royal Navy, easily eclipsing the German navy. Some French aircraft were equivalent to the German aircraft at the time, although outnumbered and most destroyed on the ground in first few days following the German offensive, which took place 9 months AFTER the war began!

French tanks overall were equivalent, some superior, to German tanks in 1939 and 1940 in terms of both armament and armor, albeit not nearly as mobile. The French doctrine of using the tanks was horribly flawed (distributed as infantry support), their communications sucked (few radios), and they overworked the tank commander by having only a 1 or 2 man turret, rather than 3 man turrets as the Germans had. The Germans beat the French by not fighting the war the French expected, not by overwhelming them with superior numbers, firepower, or quality of equipment, but by superior strategy, operations and tactics.

Last, the Tiger tanks weren't even on the design board when Hitler cruised up the Champs Elyssee (sp?).

There's not doubt that the French are responsible for their loss to the Wehrmacht in 1940, just be certain that you place the blame correctly, not upon their inability to stand up to tanks that didn't exist yet or the utter lack of quality weapons. They had quality weapons, lots of them, and easily enough industrial capacity to match Germany. Bottom line, their leadership failed, both during the interwar period, during the Sitzkrieg, and during the Battle of France.

And no, I don't believe the French were cowards. Fools perhaps, but not cowards.

[quote]Does this mean that they were necessarily going to be attacked?[/quote] Gee, perhaps the copy of the German attack plans that the Allies lucked into in 1939 clued them in...

[quote]They've got tanks,[/quote] France = 3,254 Germany = 2,493
[quote] infantry,[/quote] France = 105 Divisions, + 47 more British, Belgian and Dutch. Germany = 157 (21 of which were otherwise occupied)
[quote]artillery,[/quote] France = 10,700 Germany = 7,378

[quote] air forces. [/quote] France = 3,562 Germany = 3,369

[quote]You have almost no military[/quote]

[quote]Or maybe you want to hop into your sissy Dewoitine fighter and go up against the Luftwaffe's BF109g-10's?[/quote] Time shifting again?
[quote]The limits of the Bf 109 design appeared with the Bf 109G series, which began production in early 1942.[/quote] http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm

I see by the news that President Bush while on his European trip did make some effort to have friendly dialogue with Jacques Chirac.

I suggest we follow his example. Like they told my little girl in preschool, You don't have to like everybody. You just have to get along.

France is just a buncha worthless pansies.
I got to much other stuff on france it'd be changing topic 3 times, so I'll just say this:
They've back stabbed the US in the UN, They allowed themselves to be bribed in the UN just like they did in the olympics, and look at the torture France tried to keep in Iraq, yeah sure, they're sinless-virgin's with a little halo over their heads, I say #$%@ the french.

You are bordering on being inflammatory here, bd123

Support your opinions with facts or your words appear only to serve to get others mad.

Does anyone else think that it is ironic that an American is using the corruption of certain elements of amateur sporting to castigate the French? The USOC is perhaps the single most corrupt organization in amateur sport (outside bicycle racing organizations) on the planet. If the integrity of amateur sport bodies were the standard you should not be throwing stones.

Here's an old article that got swept under the rug:
Another former USOC official alleges drug cover-ups

The war was not only a war against Iraq but a war on the Euro. The US is right now in currency war with Europe. Iraq switched its International transactions from dollar to Euro in November 2000, Iran and suprise, suprise North Korea have been planning to do the same.

This is serious to the US economy. I present this article, but its one of many Ive read: http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuil...d=3214&survey=1

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)." In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no 'exit strategy' in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive 'regime change' if they convert their oil exports to the euro.


As if France doesnt know whats going on? WE THE PEOPLE dont know whats going on while we debate WMD and other such nonsense. The Gov is trying their best not to lose Superpower status, but the dollar is losing to the Euro and the 'enemy' nations are using economic duplicity against us. I think we should not be too arrogant because in fact, Europe is winning at this point and the French may have the last laugh.

This thread is reminding me of Nigel Powers' two hates: people who are intolerant of other people, and the Dutch.

More than 90 posts in this thread! Ranging from cogent criticisms of French policies, to ignorant hatred, from valid points to bashing history. Amazing!

France's relationship with Saddam Hussein may have been suspect. There are probably many valid criticisms to be made. But to use that as a basis for hatred is not just silly, it's downright scary. America has treated with dictators in the past, anyone remember Suharto? America and Australia didn't seem to have a big problem with genocide in East Timor. America has continued to sell Turkey most of their weapons, even though everyone knew they were using those weapons to kill over 20,000 Kurds in the south. We knew what kind of person Hussein was when we were selling him weapons and chemicals. When Hitler was practicing a policy of expelling Jews from Germany (before the policy changed to killing them), The US made a conscious decision to accept a total of... zero Jewish refugees.

I'm not pointing these things out because I hate America. I point them out because they undermine reasons for "hating" a country like France. "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

I agree. This flame war with the French has been ridiculous since the changing of French Fries to Freedom Fries

It's time we stop smashing the French for everything & be friends again

I see in addition to sending their troops to the Congo the French have also been rescuing American's and other foreigners from the escalating fighting in Liberia.

I think next to the accusations that they were too greedy to back the war in Iraq the one about them being spineless cowards is just as hypocritical. Coming from people who think it's a sign of bravery that a superpower with the biggest military every created can crush an army that didn't want to fight and knew couldn't defend itself against an army even half our size. These are the same people that find something brave about a plan like shock and awe on a populated city. We must all have very different definitions of bravery.

[quote=Bikerdad,Jun 11 2003, 12:42 AM] [quote=AGiantBean,Jun 10 2003, 10:49 PM]You're not understanding this.  Of course they were warned.  The whole world was.  Does this mean that they were necessarily going to be attacked?  And even so, what does that have to do with their military?  Picture yourself in their spot:
Right next to you is a great military power.  They've got tanks, infantry, small arms, artillery, air forces.  You have almost no military, and certainly not one equal to theirs.  I'd like to see you go fight a Panzer.  Or maybe you want to hop into your sissy Dewoitine fighter and go up against the Luftwaffe's BF109g-10's?  Perhaps you'd like to take your little privately owned, small caliber pistol and/or rifle and go against a squad with Mauser-Kar 89's, MG34's, MG42's, Potato Mashers, and a lot more.  If you think you can win in this situation then you're insane.[/quote]
[quote=AGiantBean,Jun 8 2003, 05:32 PM][quote]Trust me, it's cowards. The monarchist french government may have helped the colonies out two hundred plus years ago but they haven't done anything in the last one hundred years.[/quote]

Do you know anything about WW2? Do you fail to realize that they were a much less superior force than the germans? What would you do: fight suicidally or surrender? The French didn't have Tiger tanks, or panzers, or even a semi-good airforce. They didn't have the necessary weapons in order to fight! So of course they couldn't do anything then! Try reading up on some history before making hateful comments and wrong generalizations.[/quote]
Apparently, you don't know as much about World War Two yourself as you think.

The French Army in 1939, when the war began, was the same size as the German Army. The French Navy was the the second most powerful navy in Europe, behind only the Royal Navy, easily eclipsing the German navy. Some French aircraft were equivalent to the German aircraft at the time, although outnumbered and most destroyed on the ground in first few days following the German offensive, which took place 9 months AFTER the war began!

French tanks overall were equivalent, some superior, to German tanks in 1939 and 1940 in terms of both armament and armor, albeit not nearly as mobile. The French doctrine of using the tanks was horribly flawed (distributed as infantry support), their communications sucked (few radios), and they overworked the tank commander by having only a 1 or 2 man turret, rather than 3 man turrets as the Germans had. The Germans beat the French by not fighting the war the French expected, not by overwhelming them with superior numbers, firepower, or quality of equipment, but by superior strategy, operations and tactics.

Last, the Tiger tanks weren't even on the design board when Hitler cruised up the Champs Elyssee (sp?).

There's not doubt that the French are responsible for their loss to the Wehrmacht in 1940, just be certain that you place the blame correctly, not upon their inability to stand up to tanks that didn't exist yet or the utter lack of quality weapons. They had quality weapons, lots of them, and easily enough industrial capacity to match Germany. Bottom line, their leadership failed, both during the interwar period, during the Sitzkrieg, and during the Battle of France.

And no, I don't believe the French were cowards. Fools perhaps, but not cowards.

[quote]Does this mean that they were necessarily going to be attacked?[/quote] Gee, perhaps the copy of the German attack plans that the Allies lucked into in 1939 clued them in...

[quote]They've got tanks,[/quote] France = 3,254 Germany = 2,493
[quote] infantry,[/quote] France = 105 Divisions, + 47 more British, Belgian and Dutch. Germany = 157 (21 of which were otherwise occupied)
[quote]artillery,[/quote] France = 10,700 Germany = 7,378

[quote] air forces. [/quote] France = 3,562 Germany = 3,369

[quote]You have almost no military[/quote]

[quote]Or maybe you want to hop into your sissy Dewoitine fighter and go up against the Luftwaffe's BF109g-10's?[/quote] Time shifting again?
[quote]The limits of the Bf 109 design appeared with the Bf 109G series, which began production in early 1942.[/quote] http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm [/quote]
Alright, here goes: First, I want to hear about these wonderful, glorious French tanks. Then, maybe you can enlighten me as to France's magnificent planes and pilots. Size doesn't matter if your planes are junk. And trust me, i realize about the 109g series, but my point was simply to demonstrate Germany's aircraft superiority. I want to hear you name some famous french planes. Better yet, just give me one area where they could outdo german planes. Do they have a lower stall rate? No. Better climbing? No. Better armament? No. More maneuverable? No. Faster? No. And here we go again with the French infantry. Are they all that well trained? Not really. Let's hear about some wonderful french weaponry. Russia's famous for its artillery.... not France. So once again, number doesn't matter. Did the navy make a difference? No. What are the French going to do, float a destroyer along the Seinne? Build one in the Rhine? The navy didn't matter for two countries right next to each other. The points you made are moot.

I gathered this information from the book 'Fighters at War', due to our extensive library on all things aviation:

The best French fighter of the period was the Dewoitine D.520. Pierre LeGloan was the primary ace who flew that plane.
French top scorers were also Edmond Marin la Meslee and Michel Dorance and Camille Plubeau- who all flew the next-best French plane of that time, the Hawk 75A (it was also made in America). The Hawk was armed with one 12.7 mm and three 7.62mm machine guns. It was the best handling airplane of all during that time. It was also the only airplane fitted with an automatic constant speed variable pitch propeller, which enabled its engine to run at max efficiency throughout the speed range. On one occasion, nine Hawks bounced upon 29 German fighters, led by the German top ace of the time, Hannes Gentzen, the French shot 8, and only sustained one (repairable) downed aircraft.

According to the book, a big downfall to the French (and other allied forces) aeronautically, was their training consisted of small formations of 3 or 4 aircraft (whereas the Germans maintained formations of up to 30 aircraft)- not their dearth of good planes or pilots. It was difficult and cumbersome for them to make the transition to larger fleets.

Honestly, Bean, it seems almost as though you want to prove the French are stupid. I don't think they're cowards (OR stupid) at all. But that doesn't mean I love visiting, are blind to their arrogance (and severe dislike of US), or plan to go back for a third trip.