Why this talk of France as a "friend"?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
��������
Despite it all, France was the epitome of class, even commemorated by the gift of that beautiful statue which guards your New York harbour, and further defined by President Chirac on September 11, 2001 when he stood squarely behind your nation.
�����.

You make it sound like some kind huge magnanimous gesture by the government of France�..unfortunately the original design and idea was to place it at the mouth of the Suez Canal, and Americans paid for over half of the project. As for Chirac, the only reason he like any politician is standing behind you is that is were most carry their wallet.

Originally posted by keholmes

You make it sound like some kind huge magnanimous gesture by the government of France�..unfortunately the original design and idea was to place it at the mouth of the Suez Canal, and Americans paid for over half of the project. As for Chirac, the only reason he like any politician is standing behind you is that is were most carry their wallet.

Is something burning? I never knew we PAID for part of the statue, damn that takes just about the only good thing away....

[edit on 21-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Apoc
The debate is less about "hating the French" or France's right to disagree with the US but more about how one pres. candidate (Kerry) feels that we need to have France's approval for anything we do. The fact is they have always disagreed with the US at almost every turn, as is their right. Using them as the approval base for policy is laughable at best and dangerous at worst.

why do we have to have france's approval before we do anything? hell we saved ther asses twice. damn i knew giving condoms to our liberating soldiers back then was a bad idea. we could im proved the french that way. get some people in there that dont drop a rifel at the drop of a declaration of war.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
why do we have to have france's approval before we do anything? hell we saved ther asses twice. damn i knew giving condoms to our liberating soldiers back then was a bad idea. we could im proved the french that way. get some people in there that dont drop a rifel at the drop of a declaration of war.

I know the problem with France, it is low self esteem and an inferiority complex.

KrazyIvan - The French didn't drop their rifles when war was declared.

I post the following information often enough that I now have it saved in a Word document...

FRENCH CASUALTIES IN WORLD WAR II

Military casualties:
Killed.....200,000
Wounded....230,000
---------
Total......430,000

Civilian casualties:
Killed in bombings..... 60,000
Killed in Battle of France
1940.... 30,000
Killed in other military
operations.... 20,000
Shot or massacred in
France.... 40,000

Total civilians killed
in France..... 150,000

Deportees killed or died in
Germany :
Political prisoner.. 130,000
Laborers..... 20,000
Prisoners of War.. 30,000

Total.... 180,000

Total military and
civilian killed . . . 530,000
Total . military and civilians killed,
wounded, disabled 1,115,000

e-rcps.com...

And since?


3 unless you count one falling on his own Bayonet.



Seriously, other than Algeria & IndoChina, France has not involved itself in major combat since WWII.. unless you count Gulf War 1, but that was the foreign Legion, hence not many French in it.


Like I said low self esteem..

NOTE :A JOKE

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Got to admit Ed, you never surrendered. You were just shot down, left and right.

Originally posted by Apoc
Interesting interview with an author of a book talking about US-France relations. I've never really thought of France as an ally and I think they have directly or indirectly cost the US more military lives than any other country.

What about the US itself? Most of the wars we've fought in the last century tended to involve voluntary shipments of our troops abroad, rather than defensive combat on our own soil. And the civil war cost quite a few lives as well. We threw in our lot with France on many occasions, and it denegrates our voluntary commitments to the principles we fought for to turn about-face and say France was our enemy all along.

And as many others have pointed out, this topic is getting soooo soooo old...

-koji K.

Oh yeah, rememeber this? Ask these kids how they feel about the French... The point is, France may have their differences with the US, on such matters as those the US itself is evenly split on, but they're still our allies:


YAMOUSSOURKRO, Ivory Coast (AP) -- American schoolchildren waving U.S. flags evacuated a rebel-held city under French military escort today, as U.S. special forces landed in this West African nation to help rescue Westerners caught in its deadliest uprising. The convoy of ten to 12 cars left rebel-held Bouake bound for Yamoussoukro, 40 miles to the south, where US special forces in C-130s arrived hours earlier to receive them.

The children swung American flags out windows of the cars as the convoy headed to safety down the region's main road, after a new night of sporadic gunfire outside the International Christian Academy.

Many of the children wore T-shirts sporting American flags. Some of the youngsters leaned out the windows to yell "Vive la France!" at another French convoy headed the other way, into Bouake.




www.firstcoastnews.com...

-koji K.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by koji_K]

On the Indochina war:

www.timelineic.org...

Also this site - see this passage in particular:
"29 May- 18 Jun 1951 - Giap makes yet another attempt to break through the De Lattre Line, this time in the Day River area southeast of Hanoi. French reinforcements, combined with air strikes and armed boat attacks result in another defeat for Giap with 10,000 killed and wounded. French forces cut Giap's supply line and Giap overextends his force and leaves himself without reserves. Giap's leadership is questioned by the Viet Minh leadership. A scapegoat in the form of Nguyen Binh is found and Giap and Ho continue to lead the Viet Minh. Giap restructures his command and tightens control over various functionsAmong the French casualities is Bernard de Lattre, the only son of General De Lattre. www.ichiban1.org...

"31 Dec 51 By year end 1951, French casualities in Vietnam surpass 90,000."

"22-26 Feb 52 The French withdraw from Hoa Binh back to the De Lattre Line aided by a 30,000 round artillery barrage. Giap's forces continually ambush French forces during the retreat and destroy many elements of the French rearguard. Casualties for each side surpassed 5,000 during the Black River skirmishes."

I'm not denying that the French lost that war, as the site shows. But it shows that when a fight comes, the French don't drop their weapons and flee.

And by the way guys... thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't be ashamed of proclaiming high and loud that I'm FRENCH Canadian.

Originally posted by intrepid
Got to admit Ed, you never surrendered. You were just shot down, left and right.

Well you can believe that if you wish



Ah yeah I admitt, if the chips were down, we would still be allies, but they sure ahve a stange way of showing it.

MOD EDIT: REMOVED PICTURE

EDIT : Why? It was not offensive?

[edit on 21-10-2004 by MacKiller]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by edsinger]

edsinger,

Actually we paid for more than half of the costs.

ott,

regarding your WW2 combat casualty figures do you have a link for those totals....and it doesn't break down as to which side they happened for; as you must know the French had very large contingents on both sides...in fact, I believe France had more troops in axis uniforms then allied, if you do the totals for all of WW2. there are reasons for that other than the humorous so i won't dally here.

The funniest part of the link you posted is the following quote was in regard to the Vichy government�.you know the southern part of France that was self ruled by the French, after the French surrender to axis forces.

An official German report, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor on December 26, 1942, stated sadly: "For systematic inefficiency and criminal carelessness they (the French) are unsurpassed in the history of modern industrial labor".

Keholmes - yep, apparently the French actively and passively sabotaged the Germans' war efforts, which got them that epiteth from the German war command

As for the source of those statistics, from what I've seen they came from the Education division of the U.S. occupying army in France in 1945. I remember another source (I'll try to find it again) giving numbers for the casualties of the Battle for France in 1940. Will try to find.

Originally posted by keholmes
edsinger,

Actually we paid for more than half of the costs.





ott,regarding your WW2 combat casualty figures do you have a link for those totals....and it doesn't break down as to which side they happened for; .

Wow I learn something new everyday! Paid for half of it huh, kinda takes what little argument they had away...



Second....I was wonder that same thing, lots joined the Germans

This site www.changingthetimes.co.uk... says that the French 6th and 9th armies lost over 50 percent of their troops in battle in 1940 (and no, edsinger, they didn't run away - they died.)

According to this one www.grolier.com... "German casualties in the campaign were comparatively light, approximating 156,000, including 27,000 killed and 18,000 missing. The British incurred 68,000 casualties, plus the loss of almost all their weapons and equipment. The French have estimated that they lost 123,600 men killed, missing, and captured and 200,000 wounded."

This one has a LOT of statistics! www.angelfire.com...

And also this link re the Free French army www.nationmaster.com...

Created by Charles de Gaulle, the Free French army numbered only 7,000 in 1940. However, 100,000 Free French fought with the Allies in Italy in 1943, and they numbered 400,000 by the time the Invasion of Normandy came.

Ok so I will grant you this, what have they done since? In 60 years? Look at Dein Bin Phu they fought very well , the Legion did, but that is about where it ended for French Valiantry. I mean sure some are, but on average the do not have such a good record.

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

www.albinoblacksheep.com...

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok so I will grant you this, what have they done since? In 60 years? Look at Dein Bin Phu they fought very well , the Legion did, but that is about where it ended for French Valiantry. I mean sure some are, but on average the do not have such a good record.

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

www.albinoblacksheep.com...

actually, this doesn't take into account the Malayan insurgencies during the 50's, where the British were sorely trounced in a bloody and difficult conflict. while not properly a "war" in the traditional sense, it was no less a guerilla conflict in the same vein as the algerian "war".

-koji K.

edsinger - I have to make three comments.

First, that link you posted has been posted over and over again, by every poster on this board who is trying to "prove" the French are worthless and have always been. It's a fallacy, and I can comment in-depth about pretty much every supposed "allegation" on there. Except that even if I do it, it won't help, because people will just keep on posting it - the best way to make people believe in a lie is to repeat it the most often possible.

Second, you give yourself every liberty to poste "biased" sites, like that link you just posted - but I'm sure, as it's happened before, that if I were to post links to French sources, my research would be considered invalid, because of course "Who can believe anything the French say?" - so I'm limited to anglo-saxon sources, and expected to post only the most neutral of sources. Is that fairness? Is limiting your research to right-wing sources and expecting your opponent to limit his research to neutral sources really denying ignorance?

Third, it seems that no matter how much we post research on the history of France, no matter how we show that Britain did the same colonial thing France did and had the same colonial woes France had, you're still going to say that the French are eternal losers.

I guess it shows a nation really can see its reputation utterly destroyed if it dares oppose the almighty United States of America.

this is quite a rediculous thread. europe and the us are the last two countries that will be standing after the nuclear holocaust takes place. no questions asked.

i dont care what anyone says. this country itself is also like a british colony in ways. not that i mind at all.