France was never a friend of the US

Mmrnmhrm

Join Date 02/2005

France was never a friend of the US

Setting the record straight

French intellectuals like to sniff that Americans have no culture and no history. They're right partially on the latter's account, most Americans have no sense of history and it's a good thing for the French that they don't.

The French play the "We've always been friends with the Americans" on the naive American public who seem to actually believe it. A few Americans may vaguely have heard of Lafayette, the famous French soldier who came to the US to fight for American freedom. What they don't know is that he did this in violation of a specific order from the crown not to do so.

During the American revolution, the wilily Benjamin Franklin managed to convince the French monarch that helping the colonists would be a good way to tweak the British. The French were no friends of the US though, they helped but only because it was in their best interest - they wanted to weaken Britain, the "hyperpuissance" of the day.

During the peace treaty negotiations, the French were secretly trying to push Britain into having the western most territory of the US stop before the Appalachian mountains. Luckily, the US negotiators caught wind of this and negotiated with Britain directly. Of course, during the war itself, after a series of setbacks, the French pushed the Continental congress to negotiate for peace early with some parts being independent and the rest part of Britain still (if that had happened, much of the south and New York would be separate countries today). That isn't to say the French weren't helpful, but they weren't particularly helpful. They were doing what was in their best interest throughout it all.

Not long after that war, the French began stirring up trouble for the US culminating in the infamous XYZ affair where the French demanded bribes to even speak to US diplomats. The first actual significant naval clashes of the US Navy were against French ships. Things continued down hill to the point that the War of 1812 was nearly a war against France (the senate voted that down 18 to 14 -- but it was a close thing).

The Louisiana Purchase was no gift. Napoleon had planned to fortify New Orleans. But after a disaster in the Caribbean where his invasion force caught Yellow Fever, he had to give up his New World ambitions and needed cash. The US happily obliged.
The French continued to be a pain throughout the 19th century with the culmination of the US Civil War where France wanted to recognize the south's independence early on as a means to thwart the growing strength of the US and enable them to move forward on re-colonizing the new world (which they did briefly by overthrowing the government of Mexico and installing their own "emperor" -- incidentally, the French military, despite having huge advantages in numbers, lost several battles against the Mexican "army" -- foreshadowing future French military performance).

During the Civil War, the French got so bad that they were supplying money, arms, and ships to the south including allowing southern ships to refit and upgrade in French ports. The only reason the French didn't officially recognize the south is that they wanted Great Britain to do so as well as to avoid any isolation in the event the South lost. The British were not quite as keen on the South because of the issue of slavery and a general cautiousness.

The French went through a few more governments during this time. After the French got their rears handed to them by the Prussians in 1871, the French became more pliant -- for awhile.

In World War I, the French were about to lose again and in fact a massive mutiny was only put down thanks to Marshall Petain's reassurance that the Americans were coming and the war would be over soon. The Americans did come and their added weight along with Wilson's 14 points convinced the Germans to sue for peace. But unlike the relatively benign treatment the French received at German hands in 1871, the French insisted on a crushing peace settlement including requiring Germany to assume responsibility for the entire war ("war guilt"). While one might argue that the Prussians pushed pretty hard in their peace settlement in 1871, it's worth bearing in mind that the Prussians actually won that war and had essentially conquered France. France, by contrast, wasn't occupying any of Germany at this point and was only a "victor" in that they were a passenger of the British/US victory train. France's insistence on humiliating Germany helped seal the fate for another war.

In World War II, were not allies of the US until 1944. From 1941 to 1943, technically the French were neutral at best, Nazi puppets/collaborators at worst. When the US invaded French North Africa, they were met with stiff resistance from teh Vichy forces in many cases. Some of the first American ground combat deaths were at the hands of the French. In Metropolitan France, the general population was not particularly unhappy with the Vichy regime. A 1942 election between DeGaulle and Petain (leader of Vichy France) would almost certainly have put Petain on top.

After Britain and the US rescued France..again the French immediately became pains in the asses again to US and British commanders to the point where Eisenhower had to threaten to cut off French supplies if they didn't quit going off on their own.
After the war, the new menace was the Soviet Union. In response, NATO was formed. And the French did little to help with that -- at one point dropping out of NATO completely.

In the 80s, France refused to let the US use its air space to retaliate against a terrorist attack ordered by Libya. In fact, the only time French air space has been used by the US on combat missions has been to liberate France -- which ironically the recognized government of France complained about US/British violation of their airspace then too so technically, there is some consistency.

In 1991, the French, technically was part of the coalition. But even there, they refused to do very much and were generally a pain in the butt -- to the point that Bush Jr. probably was not too keen on having French "support" again such as in Afghanistan or Iraq II.

This is just a highlight reel of US/French "Relations". It's a lot easier to find obnoxious, hostile, and occasionally acts of war commited by France against the United States than to find acts of significant friendship (the Statue of Liberty being one of the few things but even that had an ulterior motive).

I don't think France is an enemy of the United States as some neo-cons do. But it has never really been much of a friend to the US. Today, the French really have nothing left. Their subsidized farmers, their poorly made manufactured equipment, and their subsidized competition of US aircraft makers along with their petty meddling in foreign policy that is designed for short term French gain (why should the French care if their actions ultimately lead to Europe's endangerment? They know the Americans will come running to protect them).

The French are many things. Friends of the United States? Not so much.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Subscribe to this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Funny that few are ashamed that the most powerfull person in the world, leading the so called "biggest democraty" needs to present false indications and proofs to lead his own people to take them to war. And half of the nation stands behind in patriotic transe.

What's ALSO funny is the FACT that every intelligence agency in the world *including* "France" said the same damn thing.

In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".

Successfully updated karma reason!

jcg,

"The French still regard Napoleon as a hero. I suppose its OK to be a despot as long as you're a french one."

Bonepart was one of the finest generals the world has ever known,
his campaigns and battle plans are still required reading in millitary academies around the globe.
His "Grand Armee" came within a hair's breadth of conquering all of Europe.
I think that would qualify him to be a hero in anyones books....

Serial.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bonepart was one of the finest generals the world has ever known,
his campaigns and battle plans are still required reading in millitary academies around the globe.
His "Grand Armee" came within a hair's breadth of conquering all of Europe.
I think that would qualify him to be a hero in anyones books....

Very true. And as another already pointed out, he was Corsican, not French.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+135

Funny that after the 9/11, the main french newspaper was titling on first page "we are all americans" and everybody felt this way...

Le Monde, who wrote "We are all Americans" was not a supportive article of the US. I suspect you didn't actually read the article. What the actual article meant was that we are all vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It was not an article of unity. Moreover, Le Monde (same author) clarified that the US basically had it coming and our acts before and after made the world more dangerous.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+135

But that argument, Hitler was a "hero". Conquering and massacreing people does not make someone a hero. Napoleon, in case you've forgotten, was a violent, brutal dictator who routinely executed political opponents, wiped out thousands of people. It is said that the Napoleaonic wars wiped out nearly a million people. And that was in the days before full mobilization.

And for what? What great thing was he fighting for? Fraternity? Equality? No. Personal agrandizement. Glory.

If you want to learn about a hero, I would suggest reading up on George Washington. A man who could have been king (or "emperor") but instead chose to be an elected official who worked hard, once in office, to keep the US out of war with UK or France and voluntarily stepped down after two terms of office. That is a hero.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But that argument, Hitler was a "hero".

No, Hitler was a fool who, besides conducting genocide, also helped the allies win it. He was a lousy General and killed his good ones. if not for him, D-Day would have been a masacre, and in all likelyhood, we would be speaking German now. But then if he had not been there, WWII probably would not have happened either. Chicken and Egg thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like him, but I prefer Thomas Jefferson as the greatest. But then I am a Virginian, so either will do.

Successfully updated karma reason!

>>Le Monde, who wrote "We are all Americans" was not a supportive article of the US. I suspect you didn't actually read the article. What the actual article meant was that we are all vulnerable to >>terrorist attacks. It was not an article of unity. Moreover, Le Monde (same author) clarified that the US basically had it coming and our acts before and after made the world more dangerous.

Draginol, I've read it, and you can find the article on a lot of websites. It seems that either YOU didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you've read the translation on FoxNews web site

"" Dans ce moment tragique où les mots paraissent si pauvres pour dire le choc que l’on ressent, la première chose qui vient à l’esprit est celle-ci : nous sommes tous Américains ! Nous sommes tous New-Yorkais, aussi sûrement que John Kennedy se déclarait, en 1962 à Berlin, Berlinois. Comment ne pas se sentir en effet, comme dans les moments les plus graves de notre histoire, profondément solidaires de ce peuple et de ce pays, les Etats-Unis, dont nous sommes si proches et à qui nous devons la liberté, et donc notre solidarité."

I'll try to do my best to translate, sorry for the mistake:

"In this tragic moment when the words seems so weak to tell the schock that we are feeling, the first thing that comes to mind is this one: we are all American ! We are all New-Yorkers, as sure as John Kennedy was calling himself in 1962 in Berlin, a Berliner. How counldn't we feel, like in the difficultest moment of our history, profoundly solidar of this people and this country, the united state, from which we are so close and to which we owe liberty and therefore our solidarity"

This is only the begining of the article, it's true that the following is speaking how democraty are vulnerable to terrorism but not the way you pretend it does.

You have probably noticed that just after the event, a lot of americans intellectuals and newspapers were debating about the US role in the world, the US influence and behavior that had had an indirect role in the 9/11 attacks. All this was quickly wiped out by the patriotic fever as I call it. The same fever that had lead French soldier to go to war singing and happy against the german in 1918 & 1939...

There would be a lot to say in the post 9/11 events... Just few open questions : Do you remember how and when the anthrax affair finnaly ended ? Have you heard as I did that Mohamed Atta's passport was found in the rumbles of WTC ? Do you understand why the few plane black boxes that were recovered are not disclosed for the sake of national security ?
I recomend the movie "The World According to Bush" that you can find on Amazon, I prefered it to Michael Moore's one because I dislike the ironic "tone" of Moore which, I think, weaken the arguments.

>>Dr. Guy
>>I have been to France. It is dirty, and the people are rude crude and uncalled for. The France you describe is not available to >>Americans. If the French find out you are American (I assumed it >>was all foreigners, but in that I could be mistaken), you are >>spat on and treated with the utmost contempt.

Oh yeah, I know other "facts", I've heard them on fox news : We take a shower a month, french food is bad, we are all depraved and arogant etc, etc... I even heard a scary neo-cons interview that was telling that goup sex was a "normal social practice" during the 19th century ! I have to quesiton my grandma about that

There's actualy some anti-americanism in France, that's certain, but not has much (and at the same argument level) as there's a Francophibia in the US, relayed by major medias, which is not the case in France.

France is dirty, the french are the most terrible hosts and meanwhile France is the most touristic country of the world. From what I can read from you, there's no doubt you are not the kind of person I would welcome open arms

I admit, lately the climat for American tourist coming with big USA flag shirt in France must be bad. However I have a lot of american friends to who the France I describe is available and who have no problem in France, maybe a question of behavior ?

>>Drimler
>>What's ALSO funny is the FACT that every intelligence agency in the world *including* "France" said the same damn thing.

Have you been living on this earth the last two years ? Where are the evidence ? where are the wmds now ? do you still believe that wmds were the reason for the war ? Even US official have been switching their retoric, the war was finnaly to bring freedom and democraty to the irak people (which I still hope they will get).

"Not out of choice to be one, but out of choice to post on the thread and actually be from France..not just French American."
I do no pretend to represent France or the whole french people ! As I told you, France is not white bright in the way it acted in the past and even today. We have our morons over here too ! In the same way I try not to blame all americans for the acts of the president (it's getting harder with the re-election but I try to blame the propaganda...) I'm not a french american, I'm just french, does it make it worse ?

I just stopped on this blog by chance, but when I saw yet another hatefull article on France, I had to give a different sound bell.

Sorry for being so long, there'd be some much to say...

God bless America & may not forget the rest of the world

Successfully updated karma reason!

>Drimler
>>What's ALSO funny is the FACT that every intelligence agency in the world *including* "France" said the same damn thing.

Have you been living on this earth the last two years ? Where are the evidence ? where are the wmds now ? do you still believe that wmds were the reason for the war ? Even US official have been switching their retoric, the war was finnaly to bring freedom and democraty to the irak people (which I still hope they will get).

"Not out of choice to be one, but out of choice to post on the thread and actually be from France..not just French American."
I do no pretend to represent France or the whole french people ! As I told you, France is not white bright in the way it acted in the past and even today. We have our morons over here too ! In the same way I try not to blame all americans for the acts of the president (it's getting harder with the re-election but I try to blame the propaganda...) I'm not a french american, I'm just french, does it make it worse ?

I just stopped on this blog by chance, but when I saw yet another hatefull article on France, I had to give a different sound bell.

Sorry for being so long, there'd be some much to say...

God bless America & may not forget the rest of the world

You obviously did NOT read my entire post. The second half was a "quote" from a FRENCH paper. So France believed it too. As did Germany, Italy and a host of others. Try looking past the snotty end of your french nose.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Drmiler,

I did read your post, I even went to the web site where you got your quote from. (www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm)
For your information, this is not a french paper. I give you a hint: French paper usually do not write their articles in English

This interesting article is about Blix actually saying that at that time, everybody was convince of the presence of WMD.
And by the way that's why the inspectors were sent to Iraq. And the only ones to show false report and made-up proofs were the pro-war team : UK, USA, with support of Spain & Italy. Do I have to remind you that Bush govt was unable to convince the United Nation and therefore went to Iraq unilateraly loosing support of allied countries ?

from the same article:
"Blix is scathing about the "faith-based" approach of Messrs Bush and Blair, which he says was tantamount to a "witch hunt". His account is particularly damaging for Dick Cheney, the Vice-President who continued to insist that Iraq had "nuclear weapons" long after the evidence proved the contrary. In a meeting with IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei in October 2002, Cheney said that if the inspections did not give results the US was "ready to discredit inspections in favour of disarmament".7 Indeed, this is what happened. The Bush administration actively sought to undermine the inspectors, accusing them of playing down the threat from Saddam's WMD. Blix felt insulted by this treatment."

>> Try looking past the snotty end of your french nose.

running out of arguments ? Back to the so usefull "french are so arrogant" posture ?

poor guy...

Successfully updated karma reason!

>> Try looking past the snotty end of your french nose.

running out of arguments ? Back to the so usefull "french are so arrogant" posture ? poor guy...

Naw I got plenty left over. I was being nice.Like this:

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted.

However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons.

Link

Or this:

Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working" - Tony Blair
SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

...

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Link

Or even this:

The United States stood by for years as supposed allies helped its enemies obtain the world's most dangerous weapons, reveals Bill Gertz, defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times, in the new book "Treachery" (Crown Forum). In this excerpt, he details France's persistence in arming Saddam Hussein.

First of three excerpts

New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq.

Link

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wow, you are great at cut & paste !
I had no doubt that you could find websites supporting your opinions and the official propaganda...
"Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors," sounds like rock-solid and trustable documents to me

Successfully updated karma reason!

One thing is certain. Most everyone who insult France and the French and their military history ignore the fact that the Vietnamese waxed the American's asses even more so than they did the French. And with their superior-than-the-French-equipment. So maybe, once again, I should say you all should shut the hell up about insulting France and their past and remember that the US got their asses whipped even worse than the French did. And, also once again, maybe the guys here who insult France with such gusto should shut the hell up about France being wimpy UNLESS THEY'RE PROVING THEIR OWN TOUGHNESS AND WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT "TERROR" BY POSTING THEIR SHIT FROM INSIDE IRAQ. I'm sorry, but there's something so pussyish about men who: 1. Insult France and Canada and Germany because they didn't support the internationally-condemned illegal invasion of a sovereign country 2. Demand the world take more action in the war on terror and to send their troops into harm's way.....while sitting all fat in front of their computers and not lifting a finger to walk the walk nor talk the talk... For some reason lots of these foul-minded morons don't realize their empire will fall as well one day as all other empires have throughout history have. But that's too far-sighted for most people who love killing to grasp.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One thing is certain. Most everyone who insult France and the French and their military history ignore the fact that the Vietnamese waxed the American's asses even more so than they did the French.

This and this alone shows your ignorance of the truth! The Vietnamese did NOT wax our ass. Had the military been left to their own devices in fighting that war we would have ground them to dust. Our own government handed it to the vietnamese. I know you doubt that. Well doubt these:
1: The army takes a piece of ground and spend american lives to do it. A week later our troops are withdrawn and the ground they bled for is given back. Ever see the movie the "Flight of the Indruder"?
Remember the bit bit about a no fly over Hanoi? That was no bit, it was pure fact. If your going to talk crap make sure you have your facts straight.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Had the military been left to their own devices in fighting that war we would have ground them to dust. "

Who are "them" ? The vietcongs ? Their wifes ? Their children ?

Tell me, how old are you ?

Poor miltaries that were refrain of killing and destroying as they'd like. By chance, that's not the case in Iraq !

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena arrived back in Rome on Saturday, the day after being freed and subsequently sustaining injuries when her car was fired upon by American troops. Among those on hand to greet her at the airport was Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berluscon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Had the military been left to their own devices in fighting that war we would have ground them to dust. "

Who are "them" ? The vietcongs ? Their wifes ? Their children ?

Tell me, how old are you ?

Probably older than you @ 49! The answer to your first question is the N Vietnamese!
REFUTE these *if* you can!

The army takes a piece of ground and spend american lives to do it. A week later our troops are withdrawn and the ground they bled for is given back. Ever see the movie the "Flight of the Indruder"?
Remember the bit about a no fly over Hanoi? That was no bit, it was pure fact. If your going to talk crap make sure you have your facts straight.

If you doubt the validity of this ask *moderateman* since he was actually there!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+135

That's incorrect on so many levels.

First off, without D-Day then Europe would be speaking Russian today (at worst). It is worth remembering that some August 1945, the A-bombs were coming. One could make an argument that D-Day was unneccessary.

Getting back to the topic, Napoleaon was simply another ruthless dictator who was responsible for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of deaths.

There is nothing heroic about Napoleon. Conquest does not make someone a hero. Ghengis Kahn conquered even more territory than Napoleon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+135

You have probably noticed that just after the event, a lot of americans intellectuals and newspapers were debating about the US role in the world, the US influence and behavior that had had an indirect role in the 9/11 attacks. All this was quickly wiped out by the patriotic fever as I call it. The same fever that had lead French soldier to go to war singing and happy against the german in 1918 & 1939...

Comparing US action in 2001 to the French reaction in 1918/1939 is insulting and absurd.

World War I was a totally unnecessary war. In World War II, the French military lasted only a few weeks against the Germans before surrendering.

By contrast, the United States was attacked without any knowledge by terrorists upon its civilians. We would have preferred to be left alone.

France is dirty, the french are the most terrible hosts and meanwhile France is the most touristic country of the world.

This is a typical French delusion. By what measure is France the country more people want to visit than anywhere else?

Yes, French behavior. Luckily, since the French have historically been so cowardly, no one really has to worry too much about it. They're always ready to preemptively surrender to someone.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+135

One thing is certain. Most everyone who insult France and the French and their military history ignore the fact that the Vietnamese waxed the American's asses even more so than they did the French.

LOL. Name one time that a US engagement ended in the surrender of any US force larger than say a platoon? The French lost in Vietnam - on the battlefield. The US lost Vietnam due to the politics, i.e. it got fed up with it.

But the French military getting whipped in Vietnam is just an incident in a long series of pitiful French engagements. Let's not forget that its own colony, Algeria defeated them. And defeated them so badly it caused the overthrow of the French government. Which Republic you guys on? 5th? 6th? It's hard to keep up.

France being wimpy UNLESS THEY'RE PROVING THEIR OWN TOUGHNESS AND WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT "TERROR" BY POSTING THEIR SHIT FROM INSIDE IRAQ.

Oooh. Big man. So now it's about the messenger. Unless you actually do something, you can't speak on it eh? By that reasoning, no French government person should even be able to grasp the concept of integrity or victory or principle. Which is, of course, absurd.

For some reason lots of these foul-minded morons don't realize their empire will fall as well one day as all other empires have throughout history have.

What empire? How would you even begin defining what it would mean for the "American empire" to "fall"? The US doesn't have colonies strewn all over the world to lose.

Tell you what, when Colorado and Florida start becoming their own countries I'll admit that the US "empire" has fallen.

So in other words you don't know anything about the Vietnam war.

Let me give you a one paragraph lesson:

Vietnam was actually TWO countries then. North Vietnam and South Vietnam. US troops, by policy, were not allowed to invade North Vietnam. Therefore, North Vietnam merely had to outlast the patience of the American public (Which took quite awhile) until US troops left SOUTH Vietnam so that NORTH Vietnam could march in.

If the military had had its way, the US would have invaded and subdued NORTH Vietnam and that would likely have been the end of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Vietnamese waxed the American's asses even more so than they did the French.

--Reiki-House

Lemme tell you something, R-H, if it hadn't been for the US military propping up and fighting FOR South Vietnam for almost 20 years, there wouldn't have been a war. The North would have come on in and it would've been a walk-over. Instead, the South stayed commie-free for nearly two more decades after the French pulled up stakes and left with their tails tucked to their waxed asses.

As for Napoleon, let's just say that, going by France's stellar military record over the last 150 or so years (Franco-Prussian War= loss; WW1= loss if not for England and mainly the US; WW2=loss, but rescued by US(again) and England; Vietnam=loss...need I go on?) he was France's last competent general, if a homicidal dictator and ulitimately power-crazed "emporer". Give credit where credit is due. Maybe if they'd been able to clone him, they'd be a superpower today instead of the underhanded, backbiting, rude, spiteful, jealous cheese and snail-eating little weenies they are.

Yes, that last line was intended to be inflammatory.

Successfully updated karma reason!

USing your reasoning, the United States is no friend of any country. We joined World War I after it started to impact us, we joined World War II after it impacted us, we invaded Cuba to gain strength for the monroe doctrine (same for all other south american countries). We were not friends to the japanese, we threw them in detainment camps, we were no friends of the Filipinos, we took over their country ... or sorry we "purchased" it. No country acts with out benefit on their own behalf, countries do not have "friends". And the French have given us a gift before... and its in New York now. What did we ever give the french?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What did we ever give the french?

Their freedom. Twice.
Nice as the statue is, I prefer freedom.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm sorry, remind me where we gave them their freedom?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Toughlove wrote:

The French play the "We've always been friends with the Americans" on the naive American public who seem to actually believe it. A few Americans may vaguely have heard of Lafayette, the famous French soldier who came to the US to fight for American freedom. What they don't know is that he did this in violation of a specific order from the crown not to do so.

During the American revolution, the wilily Benjamin Franklin managed to convince the French monarch that helping the colonists would be a good way to tweak the British. The French were no friends of the US though, they helped but only because it was in their best interest - they wanted to weaken Britain, the "hyperpuissance" of the day.

Typical unsubstantiated right-wing misnformation. Per the LIbrary of Congress (Link):

France had been secretly aiding the American Colonies since 1775, because France was angry at Britain over the loss of Colonial territory in the French and Indian War...

France aided the colonists by providing military armaments and loans. France's support deepened after the Americans beat the British in the October 1777 Battle of Saratoga, proving themselves committed to independence and worthy of a formal alliance. King Louis XVI approved financial assistance to the American colonists only four days after Franklin and his comrades requested it. During the Revolution, France sent an estimated 12,000 soldiers and 32,000 sailors to the American war effort, the most famous of whom was the Marquis of Lafayette.

On February 6, 1778, Benjamin Franklin was in France signing the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce recognized the U.S. as an independent nation and promoted trade between France and America. The second agreement, the Treaty of Alliance, made the fledgling United States and France allies against Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. The French decided to back the U.S. in its military efforts until the U.S. had full independence from Great Britain. After that, the treaty required France and the U.S. to work together on any peace agreement.

That's just debunking the first bit of your mindless rant.

Face it: At America's birth, France was the midwife.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm sorry, remind me where we gave them their freedom?

Try WW2.

Successfully updated karma reason!