Interesting French trivia [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

vulturesrow

10-10-2004, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the French Navy, during World War II, chose to destroy its fleet in the Toulon harbor, rather than let it fall in the hands of the Third Reich, to which the country had just succumbed, an episode which even caused casualties between pro-empire, keep-the-fleet French forces and no-holds-barred-anti-German French forces, is an indication of French cowardice to you, instead of being an example of tragic heroism? Then, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you read a lot into my post. Find the word cowardice in my post or something you think implies it. I actually think it was a pretty honorable thing for them to do. That being said, it still amuses me.

[ QUOTE ]
You started off in this forum with reasonably nonsensical neo-conservative arguments, but lately you seem to be going downhill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cryus, there isnt a unit of measurement small enough to describe how little I care about what you think of my posts.

[ QUOTE ]
My solemn advice to ya: Read up on your History. You clearly need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the above, you can imagine how much your solemn advice is worth to me. That being said, maybe you should go back and read your history and realize that the French, while have been on our side in events in the past, werent the staunch and steadfast allies that you would like everyone to believe that they were. Why dont you start with the Operation Torch and how much the French helped us out when we tried to seize Oran Harbor.

Cyrus

10-10-2004, 12:35 PM

While you've been calling the French people names, French troops are patrolling Afghanistan mountains and villages, side by side with American soldiers.

You may think that those French are "pussies" but American soldiers most certainly feel otherwise.

vulturesrow

10-10-2004, 12:53 PM

Im sorry where did I say French soldiers were pussies? Guess what Cyrus, Ive flown with French pilots. I enjoyed meeting them and I have respect for them individually. That doesnt change the fact that the French frankly havent been the great allies that you make them out to be. Especially not in the recent past. You act like its a crime to point that out. That is where my problem with the French lies, not with the individual bravery of their soldiers.

Go ahead and continue to twist my words all you want Cyrus. I am sure that my opinion of your posts means about as much as yours does to me, but Id hate to lose the respect that I have grudgingly given you in my mind. Take that for what its worth.

Cyrus

10-10-2004, 01:24 PM

"Cryus, there isnt a unit of measurement small enough to describe how little I care about what you think of my posts."

You only have to stop responding. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"The French, while they have been on our side in events in the past, they weren't the staunch and steadfast allies that you would like everyone to believe that they were."

OK, the way you wrote this, you have a beef with the French not helping us in the future, right? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

But if you're talking actually about the past, then cite, please! Cite.

We need historical examples, not personal opinions.

"Find the word cowardice in my post or something you think implies it. That being said [their sinking of their own fleet] still amuses me."

Make up your mind. Either you think that the French have been "cowards" or you don't. You can only be amused by the sinking of their fleet if you do. The "cowardice" was a direct implication of your post. The other posters in this thread understood your post likewise, and responded in kind.

I'll cut to the chase: The French have been as ruthless, murderous, brave, vicious, belligerent, all-conquering, victorious, etc, as any other imperialist world power in its day. Not something necessarily to be admired /images/graemlins/cool.gif, but there you have it. Accusing them of being "cowards" in History is exhibiting ignorance of History.

That's all there is to it.

"I actually think it was a pretty honorable thing for them to do."

Good start. Take it away.

Cyrus

10-10-2004, 01:37 PM

"Im sorry where did I say French soldiers were pussies? Go ahead and continue to twist my words all you want. I am sure that my opinion of your posts means about as much as yours does to me, but I'd hate to lose the respect that I have grudgingly given you in my mind. Take that for what it's worth."

It's worth nothing -- because it is based on a mistake you just made. If you had been a little less hasty, you'd have noticed I was not responding to you but to poster BusterStacks (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1115893&page=23&view= expanded&sb=6&o=&fpart=), whom I quoted almost verbatim. (Exact quote: "Dude... they're still a bunch of pussies." I took a wild guess and assumed he meant the French.)

"The French frankly haven't been the great allies that you make them out to be. Especially not in the recent past. You act like it's a crime to point that out."

No crime. Not even a misdemeanor. Merely a gross inacuracy. And you are simply been called on that gross historical inaccuracy.

You have been already asked to point out historical specifics in support of your argument. Got any?

vulturesrow

10-10-2004, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You only have to stop responding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't mistake my desire for discussion or debate for concern for how you feel about what I post.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, the way you wrote this, you have a beef with the French not helping us in the future, right?

But if you're talking actually about the past, then cite, please! Cite.

We need historical examples, not personal opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the point was while in the past the French have been allied with us, it was hardly staunch or steadfast at all. I have given several examples, one of which was mentioned in this thread. Go back and look.

[ QUOTE ]
Make up your mind. Either you think that the French have been "cowards" or you don't. You can only be amused by the sinking of their fleet if you do. The "cowardice" was a direct implication of your post. The other posters in this thread understood your post likewise, and responded in kind.

I'll cut to the chase: The French have been as ruthless, murderous, brave, vicious, belligerent, all-conquering, victorious, etc, as any other imperialist world power in its day. Not something necessarily to be admired , but there you have it. Accusing them of being "cowards" in History is exhibiting ignorance of History.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying thats all there is to it hardly makes it so. The French government has shown a propensity for not making the hard choices, that shows a degree or cowardice. Just like the American people are frequently criticized because of the perceptions of our leadership, so it is for the French. Sorry if you dont think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyrus

10-10-2004, 04:38 PM

"The point was while in the past the French have been allied with us, it was hardly staunch or steadfast at all."

We are still lacking those historical citations you are obliged to provide --- if you want to make such sweeping statements without sounding like Bush.

"I have given several examples, one of which was mentioned in this thread."

If you mean that "Operation Torch" you mentioned, you are confused. This was an operation against the Nazi-installed government of French Vichy. The Allies had that government, and the troops that obeyed it, formally declared as enemies.

The Free French wanted to take part in the Moroccan expedition. It was decided that neither them, nor the British would play any big part in the invasion though, and it ultimately fell to the Americans to lead the way. The reason, as the US Army website (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/algeria/algeria.htm) puts it, was because of

[ QUOTE ]

...French animosity toward the British, dating from the aftermath of the fall of France in June 1940.

Because the British had [unilaterally] sunk a number of French ships in North African ports to keep them out of German control, and in the process killed many French sailors, the French command in Africa would not cooperate with a British invasion force.
Thus, the Combined Chiefs had to maintain as much as possible an American character to the operation, at least in its early stages.

[/ QUOTE ]
After the battle was over, the Allies held in Morocco the Casablanca Conference, in which Free France took part (scroll down to see the photo of General Henri Giraud, President Roosevelt, General Charles de Gaulle, and Prime Minister Churchill).

"The French government has shown a propensity for not making the hard choices, that shows a degree or cowardice."

Only two posts ago, you said I was wrongly implying that you accuse the French of "cowardice". Now you say it out loud! So, again: You are confused.

As to the heart of the matter, cite, please. Where is that cowardice? Dare we say 1950s Algeria, where the "hard choice" was to kill one million Algerians, which they did? Dare we say 1960s Algeria, where the "hard choice" was to grant independence to Algeria and risk a military coup in France, as DeGaulle did? Or dare we say Suez, when the "hard choice" was to invade Nasser's Egypt, as they did --- but then the United States royally screwed France (and Britain) ?

wacki

10-10-2004, 04:58 PM

Where is Spree Cyrus? The only Spree I can find is lake Spree Michigan. Just curious.

wacki

10-10-2004, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or dare we say Suez, when the "hard choice" was to invade Nasser's Egypt, as they did --- but then the United States royally screwed France (and Britain) ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this funny. The Suez situation caused a long overdue political disillusionment of the British and especially the French. The British learned their lesson, but the French didn't. It wasn't us that screwed Britain, it was themselves. Eisenhower was anticolonial and was on the right side of history. But still the US had little to do with the Suez conflict. The occupying forces of the Suez fought voraciously, Prime Minister Eden wasn't the most military savy man in the world. Britain was undermined by the Bulganin letter which threatened Russian 'rocket attacks' on London to which Britain was unable to respond with it's small nuclear force and lack of the Hydrogen bomb. Operatin Musketeer was proving very difficult to deal with. The UN was unanimous against Britain. Even Britains own people were against the Suez incident. The US was right in their decision not to support colonialism. You can't complain about that.

The Suez crisis showed that Britain did not have the economy, the military capability or the political will to act as a great power. That was a long overdue lesson. But they learned it well and made the right choices from then on. They were actually very smart about it. France, took alot longer to learn their lesson, but they eventually learned it none the less.

I would tear apart many other points you made, but it would take me a while to do so, and I don't feel like writting a book right now. I suggest you brush up on your history. Or atleast get history books that aren't written in French. I'm no history expert, in fact I consider myself a novice in the subject, and still there are tons of obvious flaws I can easily spot in your arguements.

You are right we should be thankful for France's help in the war for our independence. They certainly changed the course of history for our benefit. But the truth is, the French were not our staunch allies. The US was merely a tool to give Britain a black eye and prevent it from medeling in european affairs. It worked, but not for long. Just look what happened to the French monarchy ten years later.

And the fact is that they aren't our allies now. 3 weeks before we invaded French diplomats were in Iraq selling Roland antiaircratft and anti tank missiles as well. Plus many other types of military equipment. I've listed numerous other offenses they've done to us, countless times, so I won't restate my case now. They are still a thorn in our side, and it is anything but respectable.

I can't believe you are defending the Vichy. I have said before that the there are many brave Frenchmen, and France has even had it's day in the sun. And I know that not all of the French were involved with the Vichy. But to suggest that the Vichy is anything but an example of cowardice is just ridiculous.

I mean seriously they had a Nazi government running in Paris before the Germans even arrived. What the hell!?!?! Can you not see how wrong that is? I understand their motives for doing that, but still. It isn't right.

I could go on, but I don't have the willpower or the time to write a book.

wacki

10-10-2004, 07:02 PM

Anyone know why the French scuttled the ships? Seriously it's a short boatride to England. Why not give it to the English? Or the crew could of simply conscripted themselves to British authority for the duration of the war. Americans did it. So I know the British wouldn't of objected. They had plenty of time. Poor strategy IMO.

Three battleships, seven cruisers, thirty destroyers, sixteen submarines and various small units were destroyed.... what a waste.

jokerswild

10-11-2004, 12:07 AM

or quit talking about your fascist dogma.

Ah, you are another chicken hawk coward cry baby.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

vulturesrow

10-11-2004, 12:14 AM

Actually Im in the military and flew missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks for playing.

wacki

10-11-2004, 12:18 AM

jokerswild, your an idiot.

If you even bothered to read vulturesrow's posts you would know that.

Cyrus

10-11-2004, 03:12 AM

"The US had little to do with the Suez conflict."

No, on the contrary, the US reversed the course of events by forcing the French and the British out. And, note please, I did not suggest that the US was "right" or "wrong", nor anything similar about the French (or the Brits). The point here, if you remember, is "How the French have stabbed America in the back", in so many words, in modern History.

I submitted that this is an absurd and uninformed notion, and I re-iterated that, if anything, it was the US that has screwed the Frenchies. Get it?

One imperialist world power screwing another. No hair off my balls /images/graemlins/cool.gif -- but to claim the opposite, as ignorant French-bashers are prone to do, is ridiculous.

"I would tear apart many other points you made..."

Try me, please.

"I suggest you brush up on your history. Or at least get history books that aren't written in French."

I have read a number of books, in at least four languages. And how many have you, not in English? (How many did you in English?)

"I'm no history expert."

Well, on that one, we agree 100 %!...

"The truth is, the French were not our staunch allies. The US was merely a tool to give Britain a black eye and prevent it from meddling in European affairs."

The first thing you gotta learn, if you wanna learn some History, is that nations don't have "friends" or "pals" or "special relationships" -- they have interests. That goes for any nation under the sun, including the US, yes, Virginia.

British policy on Europe throughout the last five centuries was to see that no major continental European power emerges. French policy was to antagonize Britain and, thus, it supported America's wars against the Brits. Simple.

"Look what happened to the French monarchy ten years later."

An oddly irrelevant fact. Who knows why you bring this up. (Perhaps you forget the Napoleonic era, ushered in right after the Revolution.)

"French diplomats were in Iraq selling Roland antiaircraft and anti tank missiles as well."

You prefer American missiles shooting at American planes and tanks, huh? A true patriot! FYI, the US, with Donald Rumsfeld acting one time as salesman, has sold to Saddam's Iraq many times more weaponry than France ever dreamed of!..

" I've listed numerous other offences they've done to us, countless times, so I won't restate my case now. They are still a thorn in our side, and it is anything but respectable."

You are using terms that are adequate for discussion about wise guys. "Respect"?! What's respect got to do with it? You are not Aretha Franklin, are you?

As to the "numerous other offences" the French have done to America, I have challenged your lot for historical evidence and all I get is babble about ...Vichy France!..

"I can't believe you are defending the Vichy. To suggest that the Vichy is anything but an example of cowardice is just ridiculous. They had a Nazi government running in Paris before the Germans even arrived."

You are thoroughly confused about your History.

Briefly: There have been Nazi-installed governments in all countries conquered by the Nazis. This does not makes those countries "cowards"! When the Germans were ready to enter Paris and the war was lost for the French, a part of French politicians and military men decided to negotiate terms of surrender and occupation with the incoming Nazis, so they formed a government for that, with Marshall Pétain as its head.

I never said that this action was "cowardly" or not. The term is irrelevant here. Brave or cowardly, the act was treasonous to the effort of the rest of the Allies, including the brave, fighting, blood-sweat-and-tears fighting Free French.

Right after Liberation, the French put through trials the Vichy leaders and executed most of them. (Pétain was spared, because he had been a WWI hero.)

--Cyrus

adios

10-11-2004, 04:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My solemn advice to ya: Read up on your History. You clearly need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solemn advice from you? I'm barely catching my breath after a truly ROFLMAO epsisode. You could use a little brushing up on your history too btw.

wacki

10-11-2004, 04:41 AM

Well Cyrus, looks like I got under your skin. ;-)

We will continue this debate later, I have things to do.

I admit I am a history novice, but I don't remember the US doing anything to instigate the Suez conflict. I remember them putting pressures on Isreal, and threatening to sell US holdings of the British pound. But considering the underhandedness of their "secret meeting" and Isreal's invasion, they kind of deserved it. I don't see that as stabbing the French in the back. I will have to brush up on my history, but feel free to educate me.

Also, I don't think the US has ever violated UN sanctions by illegally trading weapons for oil. There is a bit of a difference with why we sold Iraq weapons and why the French did. I'm not saying the US is perfect, because we aren't, but we do have standards.

I will continue this later... have work to do. It may be a couple of days before I get back to you on this subject. I have a lot of work.

BTW, I only speak 2 languages fluently so you have me with the 4 languages.

And again, I can't believe you are defending the Vichy.

Cyrus

10-11-2004, 11:24 AM

"Solemn advice from you? I'm barely catching my breath after a truly ROFLMAO epsisode. You could use a little brushing up on your history too btw."

When I give advice (such as brushing up on History), it is done with restraint and in all seriousness. The recipient must truly deserve such an admonition! And I always, always substantiate my position, and with as much data and links as possible.

You seem, on the other hand, to treat this a little trivially. Without pointing out what made you roll on the floor and laugh your ass off, you suggest that I need some History lessons as well. Well, where is exactly my knoweledge lacking, please?

I know I'm far from being a History expert, but I begin to feel like a Dean around here... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cyrus

10-11-2004, 11:36 AM

"Looks like I got under your skin."

You are mistaking the length of my responses for agitation. I assure you that it is not. (I could be agitated and responding, for exa,mple, with only one-sentence posts. As a matter of fact, it's more likely for one to respond like that when "ticked".)

"I don't remember the US doing anything to instigate the Suez conflict."

The US did not. Where did you get this? The Israelis instigated the whole thing, and the Brits and the Frenchies found every reason to "protect Suez" and "free marine passage". /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"I don't see [Suez 1956] as [America] stabbing the French in the back."

Listen, I don't care if the name of the current world superpower is France or US -- but when the US forced the Brits and the French to withdraw from the Suez, it spelled the end of France's colonial (and world power) ambitions. Simple as that.

All well done, of course, because it was clearly to the interest of the US to do so.

"I don't think the US has ever violated UN sanctions by illegally trading weapons for oil."

What's that got to do with the discussion? The US has traded weapons for illegal drugs in the past, for instance, or traded weapons with officially proclaimed terrorist regimes. What are you driving at?

(If you want to discuss violations of UN sanctions and resolutions in general, it's gonna be a lo-oong thread. And then, sooner or later, Gamblor will butt in! 'Nuff said.) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"There is a bit of a difference with why we sold Iraq weapons and why the French did. I'm not saying the US is perfect, because we aren't, but we do have standards."

ROTFLMAO /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Oh my gawd, oh my gawd, oh my gawd!... /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Oh, Lordy Lordy Lord, oh gawd, aye aye aye. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

adios

10-11-2004, 11:45 AM

Main Entry: sol·emn
Pronunciation: 'sä-l&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English solemne, from Middle French, from Latin sollemnis regularly appointed, solemn
1 : marked by the invocation of a religious sanction <a solemn oath>
2 : marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
3 a : awe-inspiring : SUBLIME b : marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety

I don't think any of these characterizes the advice you gave sorry.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Without pointing out what made you roll on the floor and laugh your ass off, you suggest that I need some History lessons as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow you characterizing your advice as solemn seems to be an excercise in self aggrandizement to me.

As far as a history lesson allow me to quote you again:

[ QUOTE ]
I know I'm far from being a History expert, but I begin to feel like a Dean around here...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not many are (including me) but again I suggest that you're post statement is an excercise in self aggradizement.

wacki

10-11-2004, 12:03 PM

Cyrus, if we are going to engage in a debate you are going to have to be a little more specific. You brought up the Suez thing, and count how many details I've revealed vs. you have revealed.

You were way too ambiguous in your last post, not to mention some of the previous ones as well. I'm not going to argue against someone that won't tell me what they are talking about.

You have not stated specific actions that the US did against the French to "Force them out".

Your not saying the situation that the Americans traded weapons for drugs. What is this referring to? What time period?

How am I supposed to argue with that?

Cyrus

10-12-2004, 01:49 PM

"If we are going to engage in a debate you are going to have to be a little more specific."

Look who's talking.

"You brought up the Suez thing, and count how many details I've revealed vs. you have revealed."

Stop being childish. This is not about who brought forth "more details" than the other, it's about making a persuasive and logical argument. You claim essentially that the French have not been loyal to the US -- to which I said, Bring forth some examples.

And you offered ...Vichy France, i.e. Nazi-occupied France! For crying out loud, this is not a legitimate example. (You can't ask Czechoslovakia to apologize for its government's decisions in 1943. The governor of the country was SS General Reinhardt Heyndrich!)

And I further put it to you that, if anything, it is the United States that has not been so "loyal" to France. Example: 1956 Suez. Etc.

"You have not stated specific actions that the US did against the French to force them out of Suez."

No, I did not provide details. Because I assumed you knew that bit of History. And that you can google. Can't you google? (Are you too busy to?)

"You're saying the Americans traded weapons for drugs. What is this referring to? What time period?"

You claimed that the French were selling arms to Saddam Hussein just prior to the invasion, or something. This claim means essentially 2 things :

1. That the French are wrong to sell arms to such a despicable character, and
2. The French showed their duplicity towards Americans by selling arms to their enemy.

My answer was this : 1. Americans have engaged in equally vile and "immoral" arms sales throughout History, and far more than the Frenchies (e.g. the Iran/Contra affair , get it now?), and 2. Do you prefer American missiles shooting at American airplanes and tanks?! /images/graemlins/cool.gif Because the United States has sold a shootload of arms to Saddam! Ergo, American arms have been used against American tanks and planes. Ergo, the French arms sales were certainly not "worse" than the US arsm sales!..

And Donald Rumsfeld was a main character in that sales drive!

...If the above doesn't make things clear for you, I can't help you.

wacki

10-12-2004, 02:36 PM

Britain and the US both sold weapons to Saddam, at the time everybody thought Iraq was going to be the new friend of the west in the Middle East, this did not end up being the case. As I said before we aren't perfect, but we do have standards.

The Iran Contra affair was about stopping the spread of communism. A noble cause. The way they went about it was not the best course of action, but atleast they were fighting communism. Reagan was in a sticky spot, and he got weapons to the freedom fighters and avoided an all out war with other communist countries. A dirty, but clever trick that had good intentions.

The US, and Britain, were on the border of Iraq preparing to invade and France had diplomats in Iraq selling them missiles! France was motivated by greed and money. That is a big difference.

I'm not saying the US is perfect, far from it, changing presidents every 4 years can cause many problems. But if you look at the whole situation, and then compare the US to other countries, the US is looking pretty good.

ThaSaltCracka

10-12-2004, 02:41 PM

you are talking to a brick wall Wacki.

Just to point out of absurd Cyrus is(in case you didn't notice already), he tried to convince me that it is very easy to become a saint in the Catholic Church. His mind is warped Wacki, very warped.

wacki

10-12-2004, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you are talking to a brick wall Wacki.

Just to point out of absurd Cyrus is(in case you didn't notice already), he tried to convince me that it is very easy to become a saint in the Catholic Church. His mind is warped Wacki, very warped.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, here's an interesting bit of French trivia.

Hitler invaded the Rhineland on 7 March 1936. This broke the Treaty of Versailles. It was a bluff – the German army had only 22,000 soldiers and had orders to retreat if they met ANY resistance. If France would of fought back.... even in a tiny amount using a fraction of the massive army they had sitting right there, the Germans would of retreated. According to German archives this would of severly weakened Hitler, and Hitler would of been removed from power. As it was, France did nothing. Hitler looked like a hero and gained enormous power with the German people.

To be fair, Britain didn't do anything either, but they didn't have ground troops right there! They were supposed to be defending that area.

I honestly don't care about that.. it's under the bridge. What is going on right now pisses me off.

MMMMMM

10-12-2004, 03:10 PM

Just a sidenote, but I believe I read somewhere that over the years, Russia sold Saddam far more weapons than did anyone else.

MMMMMM

10-12-2004, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
just to point out of absurd Cyrus is(in case you didn't notice already), he tried to convince me that it is very easy to become a saint in the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because that's what the priest kept telling Cyrus when Cyrus was a cute little kid;-)

wacki

10-12-2004, 03:16 PM

Yes, that is correct when talking about Saddams entire reign, but what about the oil for food program? Not like it really matters, they both shouldn't of done that.

Still, atleast Russia is comming around and Putin publically stated that Saddam wanted to get revenge on the United States. Plus Putin warned Bush about attacks after 9/11. They also didn't state at the UN they would veto any resolution under any condition. They also aren't currently stirring up any trouble in Iraq either. It's a bit different mentality. Russia was wrong to sell weapons, true, but atleast they haven't been a complete pain in the rear.

wacki

10-12-2004, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just to point out of absurd Cyrus is(in case you didn't notice already), he tried to convince me that it is very easy to become a saint in the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because that's what the priest kept telling Cyrus when Cyrus was a cute little kid;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That was harsh.

MMMMMM

10-12-2004, 03:19 PM

Sorry I thought it was funny;-)

wacki

10-12-2004, 03:22 PM

So did I./images/graemlins/grin.gif

Here is another piece of French trivia.

France Vetoes NATO Troops for Elections in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040630-120807-9389r.htm

Bush Drops Hopes for NATO Troops in Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32704-2004Jun10.html

I can find tons more, but this is 1's 2 hits on google.

ThaSaltCracka

10-12-2004, 04:04 PM

dude, I am Catholic, but that [censored] was funny.

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 01:41 AM

"You are talking to a brick wall Wacki."

Yellow brick wall. Please!

"Cyrus tried to convince me that it is very easy to become a saint in the Catholic Church."

Still ticked about that, huh? I guess Roman Catholics tilt easier than they're supposed to (solemnity, piety, an' all that).

I pointed out to you the large, very large number of saints, martyrs and other assorted fellow travelers that the Catholic Church has proclaimed in the previous century, and especially during the current Pope's ...papal reign. You choose to ignore the relative enormity of that figure and, instead, attack the person pointing that out to you.

Whether that makes it "easy" as you say or not, I truly would not know. I'm no saint.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

ThaSaltCracka

10-13-2004, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You choose to ignore the relative enormity of that figure and, instead, attack the person pointing that out to you.

[/ QUOTE ] No, I stopped listening to you because you were totally wrong. The Church has been around for close to 2000 years, so the sheer number is not surprising, you just chose to ignore to the fact that it takes roughly 100 years for saint hood to happen(if it happens at all).

I just find it funny that you love France so much, even though most of them are Catholic /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 02:05 AM

"It takes roughly 100 years for saint hood to happen [in the Catholic Church] if it happens at all."

Tell me, is All Saints Day something like the All Star Game? /images/graemlins/cool.gif Or do the faithful cheer only their own favourite saint - and boo those saints that have given them grief last year?

"I just find it funny that you love France so much, even though most of them are Catholic."

I do not believe in God, or Gods. The view from this balcony is strictly H. L. Mencken, to give a quick pointer.

And I have no special love for the French government or for another country's, generally speaking. I do love French cities, especially Paree, food, girls, music (yep!), wine (ah...), cheese, etc.

But I have no interest whatsoever defending French imperialism versus American imperialism. What interest me are facts. As in, historical facts. And you guys don't know yer History from a hole in the ground.

E.g. the ignorant poster in this thread who's still clinging to his French-bashing mind view and offers the instance of 1930s French appeasement policy towards Nazi Germany as an indication of ...the French being unable to "make the hard choices".

Only ignoramuses would use that as proof of such a claim! It was a time when, for example, in the United States, the America Firsters had the upper hand and there was a lot of anti-Old Europe sentiment. The minority and not the majority in America thought bad of Hitler, or at least thought worse of him than the French.

Moreover, with such a strong appeasement sentiment in Britain (Chamberlain et al) the French could do little to confront Germany.

Moreover, it was only twenty years after the biggest bloodbath the world had ever seen. Twenty years after World War I and the "History experts" of this page claim that France should be in a more ...belligerent mood. Right, right. (Please tell us, folks, how many French soldiers died in WWI? How many Americans? See any relevance as to respective policy? ...Too much to tax yer brain with?)

elscorcho768

10-13-2004, 02:16 AM

You started off in this forum with reasonably nonsensical neo-conservative arguments, but lately you seem to be going downhill.

First of all, the neocons are amongst the most brilliant group of political thinkers in the world, so I doubt any of their arguments are nonsensical. Just because you dont agree with an argument, don't outright demean it. Second, why even mention vultures argument as a neoconservative argument. A poor opinion of the French is a nationwide attitude, so singling out the neoconservatives is highly suspicious.

ThaSaltCracka

10-13-2004, 02:19 AM

you are asking me too many things while I am drunk.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me, is All Saints Day something like the All Star Game? Or do the faithful cheer only their own favourite saint - and boo those saints that have given them grief last year?

[/ QUOTE ] No saints are booed, it is mostly a day to remember the service that those saints did for the church and God.

That is the only question I will answer, because I don't know enough about pre WWII history in that regard.

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 02:27 AM

"The neocons are amongst the most brilliant group of political thinkers in the world."

Before we get to "political" or "brilliant", I have trouble believing they are "thinkers" even. Gotta convince me on that one first, and take it from there.

Got any evidence of neo-cons actually thinking?

"Just because you dont agree with an argument, don't outright demean it."

When an argument is nonsensical, we show that it is nonsensical and then we call it nonsensical. Pretty simple, huh?

Example: The nonensical neo-con line about taxes and the US economy. Essentially, it's like progression "mathematics", whereby

(negative) + (negative) + ... + (negative) = (positive)

"A poor opinion of the French is a nationwide attitude, so singling out the neoconservatives is highly suspicious."

I have no data nor information about the American public swallowing this particular piece of nonsensical neo-con thinking, French-bashing. I would be interested to see any such. But whethere the majority of Americans have fallen for that or not, is irrelevant. It's still neo-con nonsense --- as far as History is concerned.

If, perchance, you want to talk politics, and France's opposition to American policy in Iraq, that's another matter.

But we were talking here about the French being "unable to make the hard choices" in the past and not being "loyal" to America in most of their history. Which is typical neo-con nonsenscical nonsense.

wacki

10-13-2004, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Moreover, with such a strong appeasement sentiment in Britain (Chamberlain et al) the French could do little to confront Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1939 the French Army had 900,000 regular soldiers, and it had another 5 million men who had been trained and could be called-up in time of war. Not to mention lots of heavy equipment. The germans were heavily outnumbered and heavily out gunned. And your saying they could do nothing against an army of 22,000 that was ordered to retreat at the first sign of resistance because of Britain's appeasement sentiment?

Salt,
Your right, he is a brick wall.

ThaSaltCracka

10-13-2004, 02:33 AM

apparently he admits to being a yellow brick wall.

He actually just has selective analysis.

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 02:33 AM

"No saints are booed [in All Saints Day]."

WTF kinda All Saints Day is it then?? Imagine going to an All Star Game and not being allowed to BO-OOOOOO yer favorite love-to-hate primadona.

Jeeesus!..

"I don't know enough about pre WWII history in that regard."

Define "pre WWII". (Before Somalia?)

"You are asking me too many things while I am drunk."

Didn't notice any difference.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

elscorcho768

10-13-2004, 02:40 AM

Ever hear of Leo Strauss? Irving Kristol? Norman Podhoretz? Certaintly, Daniel Patrick Monyihan would be considered a brilliant thinker. I did not write to debate policies, only to comment on your post about neocons. Read any work in Commentary or any work by Nathaniel Glazer and you will see the brilliance of these thinkers. Seriously, you know nothing about neoconservatives so don't even try to talk like you do.

wacki

10-13-2004, 02:50 AM

Do you consider Lee Harris a neocon?

What about Thomas Friedman?

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 02:52 AM

"In 1939 the French Army had 900,000 regular soldiers, and it had another 5 million men who had been trained and could be called-up in time of war. Not to mention lots of heavy equipment. And your saying they could do nothing against an army of 22,000 that was ordered to retreat at the first sign of resistance because of Britain's appeasement sentiment?"

It was true, viewed in retrospect, that France AND Britain missed a chance when Germany re-entered militarily the Ruhr. (Which did not happen in 1939, by the way, but never mind.) Historians argue that Hitler would not have dared go to war (his forces were not yet ready) and his star in Germany would suffer an irreparable blow. But this is hindsight. A more careful look at that era is necessary.

The heaviest weighing factor in mainstream (and popular) thinking in the countries of Europe, all countries except Germany, was to AVOID WAR. (Remember, this was a mere 20 yhears after the biggest bloodbath in all History, when the cream of British, French and German youth were cut down by the millions!)

If France and/or Britain had confronted at any time in the 30s Germany, they would risk war. They crossed the Rubicon only when they realized that Hitler was relegating them to second-class powers in Europe by his advances. (Poland, for instance, was less important strategically than the Ruhr!)

Simple as that.

If this is the best you can come up with about France's unwillingness to "take the hard choices" or its "disloyalty to America" -- you are right! That's about it.

Which shows how bankrupt and laughable your arguments about French history have been all along. But I already told you so.

"He is a brick wall."

Persist in such follies at yer peril.

wacki

10-13-2004, 03:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If this is the best you can come up with about France's unwillingness to "take the hard choices" or its "disloyalty to America" -- you are right! That's about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think having diplomats in Baghdad selling Roland missiles and anti-tank missiles while 200,000 American and British troops are sitting on the border is a much much lower level. I already mentioned that, but looks like your forgot. I've posted numerous other instances in this thread and other threads, but looks like you forgot those too.

BTW I mentioned the 1939 soldier count because that is the only stat I have right now. I figured it wouldn't be that far off. But atleast I'm posting stats and links.

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 03:17 AM

"I did not write to debate policies, only to comment on your post about neocons. Seriously, you know nothing about neoconservatives so don't even try to talk like you do."

I believe that my (pretty elementary, actually) debunking of neo-con thinking and policies is proof enough of my knowledge of neo-con conneries. I have gone as far as calling the whole (amorphous, amoral, an-historic) corpus of neo-con thinking as crap. Not too tough a task, admittedly.

I hope this makes it even more clear to you.

Glad to debate specifics any time you want. (And I have the time.)

"Ever hear of Leo Strauss? Irving Kristol? Norman Podhoretz? Certaintly, Daniel Patrick Monyihan would be considered a brilliant thinker. Read any work in Commentary or any work by Nathaniel Glazer."

I was reading Podhoretz when he was not yet a nut, and then I stopped. I now get his views second-hand by reading commentaries on 'em. Daniel Patrick Monyihan I don't consider to be a neo-con. You must be thinking in terms only of defense policies but this is not the only test for labeling one a neo-con. The white haired one is a smart cookie.

Commentary I browse, yes. Less often than the Nation, admittedly, or the WP, or the NYT, or The Guardian, or The FT, much less than WSJ, less than Barrons. The hint is broad, I trust.

Strauss' anti-democratic sentiment is shrouded in neo-Platonism. (Everyone and his sister has misunderstood Plato, it seems, making the old Greek something like the darling of dictators!) But Strauss is not a NEO-con! He died in 1973. You are reaching. (How about philosopher George F. Will? /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

Godfather Cristol gets off easier than the rest because he had been a Marxist of the Troskyist persuasion. Neo-cons have adopted him but I would not label him as neo-con either. (Nor George Kennan, who made more sense than all the neo-cons put together!)

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 03:22 AM

"I think having diplomats in Baghdad selling Roland missiles and anti-tank missiles while 200,000 American and British troops are sitting on the border is a much much lower level."

Think whatever you want.

In my book, there's nothing worse than American planes being shot at with American-made and American-sold missiles. But you have your priorities different, I suppose.

"I mentioned the 1939 soldier count because that is the only stat I have right now. I figured it wouldn't be that far off. But at least I'm posting stats and links."

Ah, you "figured" right? Oh boy.

And you admit you got the year wrong (as I said, it was NOT 1939!) -- but nevertheless you feel it's OK because you provided "stats and links" about ...the wrong year.

Briliiant. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

wacki

10-13-2004, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

"I mentioned the 1939 soldier count because that is the only stat I have right now. I figured it wouldn't be that far off. But at least I'm posting stats and links."

Ah, you "figured" right? Oh boy.

And you admit you got the year wrong (as I said, it was NOT 1939!) -- but nevertheless you feel it's OK because you provided "stats and links" about ...the wrong year.

Briliiant. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said the invasion was in 1939. Stop twisting my words.

And you simply can't train 6 million troops that fast. The point was, the Germans were outnumbered.

Cyrus, either provide some facts to prove me I'm wrong, or stop talking.

This is a complete waste of my time.

Cyrus

10-13-2004, 04:01 AM

"I never said the invasion was in 1939. Stop twisting my words."

I don't twist anything.

You wrote here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1126591&page=26&view= expanded&sb=6&o=&vc=1) : "In 1939 the French Army had 900,000 regular soldiers, and it had another 5 million men who had been trained and could be called-up in time of war."

The date was wrong. The data are not the same. The link you provided is useless. You already made a fool of yourself. Why do you persist?

I have acklowledged that, viewed in retrospect, the French missed a chance to confront Hitler when he re-ocuupied the Ruhr area in the 1930s. And I gave you the reasons why this inaction (by the British and the French), an inaction that was supported by the US, was justifiable in the eyes of most people and most governments at the time.

The point is that this episode is NOT indicative, as you want us to believe, of the French not being "able to make hard choices" in their History. You are being silly to claim that on the basis of the Ruhr episode.

You've been trying to make that point throughout this thread. But I have shown to you that you have no idea what you are talking about --- yet you persist in getting eggs on the face!

...In fact, there are so many eggs on your face already, we could feed a full-handed poker table with omelette. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

wacki

10-13-2004, 04:08 AM

Speaking in baby talk. If it takes time to train 6 million troops, and the French had 6 million troops in 1939, we can assume they had alot of troops in 1936.

I think you are the only one reading this thread who doesn't get that.

That's it. Cyrus I'm done talking to you, you are a nutcase.

J_V

10-13-2004, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucky sucky Jokers.

elscorcho768

10-13-2004, 04:41 AM

It was always clear that you have no respect for the neocon argument. There was never any doubt about that. The fact that you listed a bunch of liberal publications (minues WSJ) just shows that you have a clear bias agains the neocon movement. I shouldnt criticize that since I have a bias against the New Left. Luckily for me, the Left basically destroys their own argument through its actions and double standards and is not credible like it used to be (Irving Howe) , but that is for another thread. Since you really never have read the neocon argument in depth (browsing the headlines of commentary does not count)i find it "nonsensical" of you to so brashly criticize it. I dont read the Nation religiously, and even though I probably disagree with most of its positions, I dont comment on how its filled with moronic thinkers. The fact is I dont. I respect their views and believe they are well though out but incorrect. You seem to be closeminded enough to simply disregard any opinion that is not in line with your own, but that is only your problem. Moynihan is a neo con by his own admission and the views of his colleagues. He is against affirmative action and strong on defense as you said. Also, he believes in the need for moral standards. He is not like the paleo-cons, and obviously neither are the neocons. Strauss actually said is pro-democratic. He believes it is imperfect but still the best. Kristol is the godfather of the neocon movement. For you to say he isnt one just shows your ignorance on the topic. Please do us all a favor and stop spewing all this b.s.

Cyrus

10-14-2004, 03:01 AM

"I'm done talking to you, you are a nutcase."

Yes, it's unnerving when you try to post "data" to support your position and someone points out that your "data" comes from the wrong year and is entirely irrelevant, doesn't it? Sorry if I hurt yer feelings.

"If it takes time to train 6 million troops, and the French had 6 million troops in 1939, we can assume they had alot of troops in 1936."

You utter, utter dufus.

Those called up in Europe for military service when there is the threat of war, are not supposed to get basic training, they had it when they were drafted! France and the other European powers could call up in arms a large number of young men and put them in uniform, at a month's notice. You think the French were "training" those "6 million" for years?! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Your insistence that the 1939 number of French troops could be somehow relevant to the number of French troops at the time the Ruhr was re-taken by Hitler is utterly, utterly silly. This is not supposed to be a linear relation, man! Why don't you just admit that you were wrong to take 1939 into account and go on with the rest of yer argument?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cyrus

10-14-2004, 03:10 AM

My concern is not so much with the "architects" of neo-con "positions". (I can hardly call it a coherent philosophy, but, then some people here have proclaimed that Ayn Rand was a philosopher!)

My concern is with the followers and the second-tier of neo-con "philosophizing". The original thinkers had a number of valid, or at least intriguing points to offer. (One could argue that Heidegger was the original culprit for massive misunderstadning and misappropriation of neo-Platonic ideas. But I blame his politics first and foremost, for that.)

You seem to be sure that I have not read or known "enough" about the neo-con arguments. And you insist that my posts show this. I believe that you are posting under the influence of anger at me calling neo-cons "stupid" and their "ideology" the same thing. I would humbly suggest we take this to the page where Shoonmaker roams.

"Strauss actually said [he] is pro-democratic."

The analysis of that phrase alone would be enough for at least three sessions.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

(Take note of the word "actually", for instance, which belies the author's viewpoint more than the rest of the argument.)