Stimulating Commentary on France and Germany

[don_riggins]

france and germany actually agree on something and germany is the voice of reason :o worlds coming to an end :P

[DarthMaximus]

This is an old article (Dec 2001) but it cracks me up.

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2001/122001.htm

[yourbuttocks]

The differenence is that the Nazis/Commis could and would occupy Western Europe, whereas the British could not put down the American Revolt.

[TG Moses VI]

Okay… lets keep France bashing at a minimum… or does not the adage of do on to others what others would have onto you don’t apply. :wink:

Anyways no one ever makes fun of Spain or Portugal or Poland…

[cystic crypt]

@TG:

Okay… lets keep France bashing at a minimum… or does not the adage of do on to others what others would have onto you don’t apply. :wink:

Anyways no one ever makes fun of Spain or Portugal or Poland…

How things change . . . .
You don’t remember the “good old days”? When a “dumb Polack” joke was as politically correct as “dumb American”/Newfie (from Newfoundlander) jokes are today?
Also i make fun of Spain when i’m in Portugal. There’s just no point in making fun of Portugal tho’. Kind of like kicking a puppy . . . .
(also i’m hoping to move there one day 8) )

[Yanny]

The differenence is that the Nazis/Commis could and would occupy Western Europe, whereas the British could not put down the American Revolt.

I see no difference. We aided them in their wars, they aided us in our war. The British could and did put down an American revolt, however they could not keep the pressure up on the Americans when the French joined in and started attacking British interests outside of America.

[Xi]

I heard there was a nasty commentary on French Military History on the Web. As in… they have an abissmal W-L record. I looked, but I couldn’t find it. I know they got beat in the early part of the Viet Nam War or whatever they called it. And, of course, they neeeded help in WWI and WWII. They lost the French and Indian War, as we call it. They lost England when that French Knight Dude said, “I vant doobie Kink(or whatever)!”
I think the only victory they were given credit for was the French Revolution in which they beat themselves(or as the victors always say, “The good guys won :P !”

Say! What’s with us naming all the good stuff for them? French fries, French pastries, French Onion Soup, French’s Mustard, French curls(or is it braids or both?), French kisses, French poodles(Wait! Skip that one!!!)
CAN’T WE THINK OF SOME OTHER NAMES FOR THESE THINGS?!
Like CRAP!

[cystic crypt]

@Xi:

I heard there was a nasty commentary on French Military History on the Web. As in… they have an abissmal W-L record. I looked, but I couldn’t find it. I know they got beat in the early part of the Viet Nam War or whatever they called it. And, of course, they neeeded help in WWI and WWII. They lost the French and Indian War, as we call it. They lost England when that French Knight Dude said, “I vant doobie Kink(or whatever)!”
I think the only victory they were given credit for was the French Revolution in which they beat themselves(or as the victors always say, “The good guys won :P !”

Say! What’s with us naming all the good stuff for them? French fries, French pastries, French Onion Soup, French’s Mustard, French curls(or is it braids or both?), French kisses, French poodles(Wait! Skip that one!!!)
CAN’T WE THINK OF SOME OTHER NAMES FOR THESE THINGS?!

well, Napoleon did well for himself for a while, making quite a name for himself. Also don’t forget about Charlemagne, who did well for the French (Franks, at the time), uniting much of western Europe, defending “France’s” borders against the Moors and Saxons. Finally there is (what i consider to be) the most important battle in the history of (at LEAST English) civilization - the Battle of Hastings - where the Normans defeated the English back in 1066. As for recent French conquests, well, their Imperiallist record, the FFL all speak for themselves in various ways.
At the same time, I consider the Arc de Triumph very Ironic - the only armies to march triumphently through it were the Germans and the Americans . . . .

[Xi]

Ya, c_c_,
Charlie was a cool dude at fightin’ an’ unitin’!
However,Napi won battles, but he lost the WAR.
And the Franks got to W Eur by being pushed outa E Eur, didn’t they?
Besides, what’s with the Franks-Normans thing? Did one lil groupa French-to-bes want all the glory, so it wasn’t called a Frank-or-whatever-they-called-themselves back then?

[cystic crypt]

@Xi:

Ya, c_c_,
Charlie was a cool dude at fightin’ an’ unitin’!

However,Napi won battles, but he lost the WAR.

And the Franks got to W Eur by being pushed outa E Eur, didn’t they?

Besides, what’s with Franks-Normans thing?
Did one lil groupa French-to bes want all the glory, so it wasn’t called a Frank-or-whatever-they-called-themselves back then?

Oh, I guess they weren’t united by Charlie yet, nevermind :cry: !

charlie was a 780’s kinda’ guy

[yourbuttocks]

@Yanny:

The British could and did put down an American revolt,

By the end of the southern campaign, the British had New York and Yorktown, and that is all. The British were losing thousands a year and making no permanent gains. How could they win?

[Yanny]

(I wrote a few pages of text before this, but its late and it was just a rant, so heres the short version)

In short:

American victories without French aid:

Concord
Bunker Hill
Trenton
Princeton
Saratoga
Cowpens

British victories:

Battle of New York (including Fort Lee and Fort Washington)
Battle of White Plains
Battle of Quebec
Battles of Philidelphia
Battle of Charleston
Battle of (Can’t remember name, Gate’s last battle)
Battle of Savannah (spelled wrong)

Until the French aid arrived, the British were winning easily. Saratoga was their only real defeat, the others were merely dents. It took the French navy to defeat the British. It took French money to keep the American army from open mutiny. It took French ammunition and guns to keep the Americans fighting.

Yes, we won the war. Yes, we won it in part because of the courage and sacrifice of great people. But without the French, we would never of come close to winning.

[Ozone27]

“Franks” was the name applied to a very diverse group of Germanic (and later Germanic/Romanic) people who migrated into Gaul in large numbers between the 5th & 6th centuries. They actually conquered North Italy and much of modern-day Germany & won important victories against the Moors in Spain. When Charlemagne died he left his empire to his surviving son, whose sons in turn divided it up among themselves. This began the traditional division of “Germany” & “France” as separate political units (& often rivals)…

Vikings conquered large tracts of land on the Northern coast of France and settled there (hence the name “Normandy” originally from “Norsemen” or “Northmen”) They mixed with the old Germanic/Romanic Frankish population & became a more-or-less separate “Norman” people who travelled about conquering and adventuring in various areas of Europe (including Italy, England & the Middle East). They were eventually reassimilated into “mainstream” French culture.

I think referring to the French or Germans as wimps for being “afraid” to attack Iraq is shortsighted. Both countries have powerful interests in Iraq & don’t want a war unless they have to. Also both countries are itching to display their independence from US policy–which is a big reason they have been working so hard for a European Union. I think we need to go take out Saddam as well, but don’t accuse a nation of being “wimps” just 'cuz they don’t agree with us. If it’s worth doing it’s worth doing it without them, if not–well, it’s not.

Ozone27

[Yanny]

Ozone, its far worse. People are accusing France and Germany of being enemies of the United States.

France and Germany were traditionally rivals. France (Gaul at the time) was controlled by Rome. It was Romanized. Germany however, they beat back the Romans, and never was Romanized. This created a rift in Europe which lasted to this day. The East and the West.

[Xi]

France’s military is currently very weak due to minimum budgeting. It’s economy is weak due to recession. The remaining strength is diplomacy. France’s problem is that diplomacy has little validity without military and economic strength.So they bluster in the inept UN and are successful in the short term.

Then NATO gets involved and France is out manueverer by themselves (having left the planning committee by their own chosing.

Meanwhile, back at the chateau, France has sent military forces to Cote de Ivorie, unilaterally,without seeking nor obtaining UN sanctions or approval. Hypocrites!
–-------------------------------------------------
“No War for Oil.” - Le Motto Nationale de France :roll:

[Ozone27]

@Yanny:

Ozone, its far worse. People are accusing France and Germany of being enemies of the United States.

France and Germany were traditionally rivals. France (Gaul at the time) was controlled by Rome. It was Romanized. Germany however, they beat back the Romans, and never was Romanized. This created a rift in Europe which lasted to this day. The East and the West.

Gaul was one of the most Romanized provinces of the Empire, but for hundreds of years after was ruled by large Germanic tribes (Franks) who, having originated in what is today western Germany, had strong ties to there. Charlemagne’s grandson was known as Louis the German & spoke German as his main language. It was only after he and his brothers divided the Western Empire that there was a separate “France” & “Germany”–the rule of the latter of which carried with it (in theory) the Holy Roman Emperorship.

But all that is, as they say, “ancient history”… :D

As far as your first statement, yeah–I’ve heard the rumors. There’s talks of boycotts, resigning from the UN etc… This has particularly affected me because 2 of my best friends are Germans & we have felt the need to avoid conversation on the subject, as much as possible. To people who throw up the example of our aid to France in WWII I can only point out that what I thought the US fought for was the freedom of people to seek their own way in the world without fear some vicious dictator would come along & massacre and oppress them for their beliefs. What we weren’t fighting for (in spirit at least :wink: ) was for everybody to obey our will & back us up till the end of time in gratitude for our magnanimity. So, while IMO taking out Saddam has become a burning necessity for the good of all people threatened by his misuse & hiding of weapons, it’s OK for the French to disagree if that’s their position. We must not forget that, jeez these guys are our ALLIES for pete’s sake! We may disagree, but that’s no cause for petty infighting!

…that’s exactly what Saddam wants to see–US vs. France & Germany rather than US, France, Germany et al. vs little old him! So he’ll try to keep it going as long as possible. Both sides should try harder to cooperate. This back-&-forth is a joke…

Another point: not to defend the European opinion, but they could also argue that the current situation is our fault for not finishing Saddam off when we had the chance 12 YEARS AGO!!! The US government pussed out at the zero hour when our troops on the ground wanted to finish the job. They were right, the government was wrong, and now it’s hard to build another Grand Coalition 'cuz:

A.) The Europeans are in deeper with Iraq economically than ever before…

B.) Iraq no longer appears to be as great a threat because we kicked their asses so hard the 1st time…

Xi: France was in recession when the 1st Gulf War happened so I don’t think that has a lot to do with it. More importantly, recent events–most notably the World Court diplomatic fiasco–have soured the EU members (led by surprise France & Germany) on US policy. I don’t know about France, but in Germany, Chancellor Schroeder won an important victory over the challenger, conservative candidate Stoiber in the recent elections, partly because of his strong stance against kowtowing to the US over Iraq policy. As I said before, the EU is just itching for a chance to demonstrate their growing power & influence by defying the US–maybe (just maybe) this is a big case in point…

Whoa this was hella long, sorry got carried away. I usually don’t post on the Gen!

That is all. Return to your posts…

Ozone27

[Yanny]

Ozone, I agree with you on all but one point.

…that’s exactly what Saddam wants to see–US vs. France & Germany rather than US, France, Germany et al. vs little old him! So he’ll try to keep it going as long as possible. Both sides should try harder to cooperate. This back-&-forth is a joke…

This is what Osama wants, not Saddam. Saddam wants all of us to buy his oil, and live peacefully while he gets rich and fat.

Osama’s goal is to defeat the United States. Now, he knows he can’t really do that. But he can screw us over in more ways than one. He’s trying to transform us into an isolationist authoritarian society. My biggest problem with Bush is he is doing exactly what Bin Ladin wants.

[Ozone27]

Yanny, I agree w/ YOU except for 1 point: :wink: :

This is what Osama wants, not Saddam. Saddam wants all of us to buy his oil, and live peacefully while he gets rich and fat.

…true. Except he also hates the US & would love nothing better than to see us humiliated. Case in point: his quotes just after 09.11.02 celebrating the attacks…

I agree with what you seem to be saying–that there was no connection between Al’Qaeda & Iraq before the 09.11.02 attacks. I’m sure that Osama bin’Laden doesn’t even LIKE Hussein (who WOULD!). But given the opportunity to get a hold of biological/chemical weapons for use vs. the USA/Israel, I believe he’d work w/ Hussein in a second. Given the opportunity to use his chemical/biological weapons vs. the USA I believe Saddam would work w/ Osama in a second. So what do you do? I think the answer is obvious; eliminate the weapons. Eliminate the threat…

Ozone27

[Yanny]

Well, its the whole “The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend” theory. But in this case, the all three parties hate each other :) Osama Bin Ladin backs the leading opposition groups in Iraq. Iraq is different from it’s neighbors because it’s a secular state. Even in the recent tape released by Osama Bin Ladin (or a damn good mimic), Saddam was called an Infidel.

Now, Al-Quaeda working with Iran I could believe. But Iraq? They hate each other.

[Ozone27]

HAHA We’re online at the same time…

Can’t see Al’Qaeda working w/ Iran since the latter is Shi’ite (for the moment) while bin’Laden is hardcore Sunni.

A good example of what you are saying is the corner Hussein painted himself into in the 1st war…

In order to win, he had to invade Saudi Arabia. But he also had to gather a coalition of Arabian Muslim states around him in a “counter Coalition”. If he DID invade Saudi Arabia, it would reveal him to be nothing but the self-serving egotist that he is–that equals no allies. SCUD attacks on Israel didn’t fire up the Arabs, so he had no friends…he was screwed…

bin’Laden knows Saddam’s in it for nothing but himself–no higher purpose. But would he hold his nose & work with him in order to get the weapons he needs? I think, yes…

JMO

Ozone27