|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Basic Training |
Looks like France's first lady snub our country again.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/13/france.sarkozy.reut/index.html Regardless of where you stand politically, she is snubbing us and not the president. Looks like the memories of WWII are long gone... |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
After reading the article and seeing even French papers questioning her motives, I would say it is more of a character issue than a political snub.
From what I can gather, she could care less about being the First lady of France and is going to do her own thing regardless. Maybe she is just a bit whacko, who knows.... |
|||
|
Member |
Eh? Its a woman they change their mind like a kid in a Candy store.
|
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale  |
And we have been saying what about them since "91? Remember they stood by us as an ally from 1775 to 1991, and then had a philosophical difference with our President. Let's not read too much into this, or we will be arguing that ridiculous, “is it "Freedom Fries" or "Belgian Fries" all over again. Have a good day!!!
  |
|||
|
Member |
Our ally? There's only one nation that Americans have fought in six different conflicts... King William's War 1689-97 (War of the League of Augsburg) Queen Ann's War 1702-13 (War of the Spanish Succession) King George's War 1744-48 (War of Jenkin's Ear/ The Austrian Succession) French and Indian War 1754-63 (The Seven Years' War) The Quasi-War 1798-1800 WWII 8 Nov- 31 Aug 44 ...and that's France. France became a formal ally in 1778. Prior to that, Lafayette was considered a criminal for coming to America when Louis XVI opposed it. Although during WWII the Free French in North Africa rallied to the Allies after they resisted the Torch Landings, the Vichy France government continued to fight for the Axis. DeGaulle declared the Provisional Government of France established in Paris on 31 August 1944. This message has been edited. Last edited by: FBoehm, |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Not to put too fine a point on it, "Americans" fought the French in the first four as British subjects, and the last two weren't wars at all. "Quasi" doesn't count ... and in World War Two, we never declared war against France, nor did France declare war on anyone except Germany. Since they were operating under an armistice that demobilized all armed forces in country, and Germany kept the 1,900,000 POWs they took in the 1940 campaign working in Germany for the entire war, Vichy didn't have much in the way of armed forces to resist with. The French resistance to the Torch invasions was for the most part (although not entirely ... I know about the two converted cutters and the 6th Infantry in Oran) symbolic, and ended completely with the November 11th armistice. By the time of the Tunisian campaign, they were fighting on our side, and participated in the Italian and European campaigns as well, hundreds of thousands of them ... while all Vichy could muster was a few thousand milice, less interested in facing real forces and more interested in transporting as many Jews as they could lay hands on. |
|||
|
|
Member |
If even the first American lost his or her life, it counts in my book. I also believe that the more than 1400 casualties in North Africa can be considered more than 'symbolic'. France's support during the Revolution was solely to weaken and embarass the English. The last thing Louis XVI wanted was to see this 'Democracy' thing gain support among the people. In the end, he really 'lost his head' over it. In February 1781, France counseled the Americans to accept a peace that would be based on the territories occupied at the time. Wisely, we refused. During the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris, France surreptitiously encouraged Great Britain to limit its territorial concessions to only those lands east of the Appalachians. When war was declared against Great Britain in 1812, a similar declaration against France as a co-bellligerent failed in the Senate by a vote of 18 to 14. Having sold Louisiana, France had no holdings in North America other than Miquelon and St Pierre (a major British mistake!) and a trans-Atlantic invasion of France or fighting a second enemy at sea were impractical. France took advantage of the American Civil War and established a puppet regime in Mexico under Maximillian and actively, though not formally, supported the Confederacy. Slightly more than a month after Lee's surrender, Grant sent Sheridan to the Rio Grande as a hint that it was time for the French to leave. During WWI, France's hope was to have American troops placed under French command to be used as more 'canon fodder' (admittedly, the British wanted the same thing). After the Armistice, Clemenceau fought Wilson on virtually every one of his 'Fourteen Points' and the Treaty of Versailles laid the groundwork for WWII. As an 'ally' in WWII, DeGaulle was as much a hindrance as he was a help. He was even more of a pain after the war. The bottom line for the past four centuries is that France is an ally solely when it's in the furtherance of French intersts. |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale |
Ah, mon amier. Let us not talk of such things.
|
|||
|
Member |
They are French, who care?
|
|||
|
|
Member |
She should be B**** slapped for snubbing our First Lady.....
Let us not make excuses for the Wh***.... For that's all she is,,,a high priced Wh*** of France's current ruler.....He should never have married her and mearly taken her as a lover. |
|||
|
Member |
Oh darn! And here I was ready to buy Haut Medoc again.
 .05 |
|||
|
Member |
Chill out guys, your delicate feelings are embarassing. The article says she has been missing from alot of her husband's political meetings. He is the leader in France, who cares if his arm candy comes with or not?
Pointless topic. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Of course ... and we do exactly the same thing, and would be crazy not to. Please don't try to make decisions based on national interest sound like a perfidy peculiar to the French. My issue with the last point on your list: WWII 8 Nov[1942]- 31 Aug 44 is that it leads one to believe that there were active hostilities between our country and the French that went beyond the four days between November 8th and November 11th 1942 beyond sporadic sniper fire around Casablanca for a few days longer. In order for that to be true, you would have to point out a single example of any organized French unit, on air, sea, or land, that engaged in a hostile act after that date, and I can't find a single one. As far as symbolism goes, although I am not underestimating the effects on the families of any of the casualties, given that this was our first major amphibious landing on a hostile shore, we got off incredibly light. This was, in many respects, a complete cluster, and the Army took the lessons learned in Torch very much to heart in after-action reports. But quoting from the Army history: http://www.army.mil/CMH/brochures/algeria/algeria.htm PS. Limiting French possessions in North America to two tiny islands, most famous for de Gaulle's pissing Roosevelt off, glosses over what they considered much more important holdings in the West Indies (some of which they hold to this day). Canada was never anything but a complete financial drain on the crown ... those sugar islands were obscenely profitable, and the cause of our "quasi" frictions. While the Treaty of Versailles did lay the groundwork for World War Two, so did the Senate's refusal to accept the concept of collective security through the League of Nations ... just as the Dawes Plan, which poured gobs of US cash into propping up a defeated enemy, contributed to the Great Depression. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I can just as easily argue that (a) the first was nothing more than a few Americans tryin' to make a buck, (b) considering the effectiveness of the UN, the Senate was correct, and (c) the Marshall Plan contributed to millions to an erstwhile ally that tends to nip at our fingers at every opportunity. Face it, Mole... the only thing you and I are going to agree on in this is the fact that the French have an annoying tendancy to be... FRENCH! It's just that it irritates the he** out of me when folks use the '...but they helped us out in the Revolution!' rationale to excuse whatever they did today. Maybe part of that stems from growing up in central New York state's Finger Lakes region, just a stone's throw from Niagara, Oswego, Bell Isle, and the Champlain-Richelieu' corridor. Might even draw a bit from two separate generations of my family having to chase Germans back to where they came from and then being on the Vietnam 'clean-up crew' myself. Could've even been all those damned signs in Quebec and Montreal written in French instead of English!No, I'm not an absolute Francophobe. I love the impressionists and the house is filled with prints of Monets, Manets, Cezannes and several 'knock-offs' in oil from Mexico. Dumas has been one of my favorite authors since I was a kid. The exploits of Langlais and the 'Paratroop Mafia' at DBP or those of the Legion are always an inspiration. The continued arrogance and unwarranted air of superiority of many French politicians however, is galling (or is it 'DeGaulle-ing'?). When you consider Reynaud's plea for American intervention as France fell in 1940 "...You will then see France go down like a drowning man and disappear after having thrown a last look toward the land of liberty where she sought salvation..." as opposed to words of Chirac and de Villepin during the '90s, you have to wonder how 'one-sided' the alliance is. Whenever I see Delacroix's 'Liberty on the Barricades', I feel it should be captioned "Oh shi*! Where are the Americans??" This message has been edited. Last edited by: FBoehm, |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
No need to use that language. "Never try to teach a pig to sing; It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Heinlein |
|||
|
|
Member |
And what exactly did they do wrong ? Trying to prevent the war from happening ? |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Good sir, that may be all we are able to agree upon, but what we ought to be able to agree upon is that the things that annoy us most are our own faults reflected in others. The idea that arrogance or an axiomatic sense of superiority of language, culture, or political arrangements is exclusively French means you don't get out much. Politics (and its extension, warfare) are too complicated to have single heroes or single villains, and failing to recognize our contributions to difficulties means we can never correct them so as to avoid them in the future. That isn't "blame America" ... it just isn't "absolve America completely because we really mean well". |
|||
|
Basic Training |
The only good thing outta france is hennessey!
 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
As if there is a need to call this woman names, it was not a snub to our country or President, she snubs anything political...Perhaps she is more interested in her husband than his career, unfortunately it goes hand in hand for his position....So what!
Atleast she had the decency not to show up then show up talking ignorant and foul...That alone outclasses quite a few... Even if she did not like Americans? So what? She lives in France |
|||
|
|
Member |
Never said it was exclusive to the French. Do believe I pointed out that I enjoy French art and literature, and IMHO, there are bright spots in their military history. Did point out the difference in perspective and tone when France was overrun versus when Kuwait was overrun. Didn't accuse anyone of being a member of the 'Blame America First' club nor did I claim American foreign policy was always altruistic and pure. What I did point out was the annoying tendency of some Americans to always excuse any French action that could be construed as contrary to US interests with '...but they helped us out in the Revolution!' as though that one instance places us eternally in their debt, regardless of anything else past or future. We challenged Great Britain on the battlefield twice. The 'Slidell Affair' at the beginning of the American Civil War could easily have led to a third war with Great Britain (that 'Freedom of the Seas' thing we were so righteous about in 1812). Yet, we've stood side by side in WWI, WWII, The Gulf War, Iraq, and stopped just short of overt aid in the Falklands. The WWII campaigns in Italy and the Pacific are well known, but few remember that Japan and Italy were our allies in WWI. While many are aware that the USSR was an ally in WWII, most of our recollections are colored by the 'Cold war'. Russian support of American claims to the Northwest, the purchase of Alaska or the Czar sending the Russian fleet to 'winter over' in American ports in support of the Union during the Civil War are largely forgotten. Allies and national interests shift as times change. My point is that basing our view of France solely on the events of the Revolution is both myopic and historically inaccurate. |
|||
|
