StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

If only we could...

*imagines the pleasing sight of an American flag flying from the Eiffel Tower*

Nathan F wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

If only we could...

*imagines the pleasing sight of an American flag flying from the Eiffel Tower*

And don't forget a masive "Don't Mess with Texas" sign on the Lourve.

Stormbringer wrote:

Nathan F wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

If only we could...

*imagines the pleasing sight of an American flag flying from the Eiffel Tower*

And don't forget a masive "Don't Mess with Texas" sign on the Lourve.

And of course someone would have to paint the obligatory 'Kilroy Was Here' on the Arche de Triumph

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

And the war was known as "The Two-Hour War".

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, that's the excuse we needed. Arm up boys, we're invading France!

And the war was known as "The Two-Hour War".

Indeed. Actually, I'm thinking that this smiley may have been more in order:

A US-France war would be interesting to watch. Unlike Iraq France has a real military.

evilcat4000 wrote:A US-France war would be interesting to watch. Unlike Iraq France has a real military.

...

BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah, a real military that'll surrender faster than you can cross the country in a B-1.

Nathan F wrote:
...

BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah, a real military that'll surrender faster than you can cross the country in a B-1.

Oh please, as an Englishman it is my duty to mock the French but the crassness and lack of originality displayed in most (non English originated) French bashing is sickening.

Nathan F wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:A US-France war would be interesting to watch. Unlike Iraq France has a real military.

...

BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah, a real military that'll surrender faster than you can cross the country in a B-1.

At least the french have aircraft carriers, their own fighter aircraft and tanks.

evilcat4000 wrote:

Nathan F wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:A US-France war would be interesting to watch. Unlike Iraq France has a real military.

...

BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah, a real military that'll surrender faster than you can cross the country in a B-1.

At least the french have aircraft carriers, their own fighter aircraft and tanks.

Their carrier navy is a joke. Come to think of it, every carrier navy in the world except the United States Navy is a joke.

evilcat4000 wrote: At least the french have aircraft carriers, their own fighter aircraft and tanks.

But none of that matters because 60+ years ago the French ruling teir was filled with fascists and those without the will to fight.

It isn't like they lost a few soldiers and ran screaming from a country within the last 11 years (*cough*Somalia*cough*)

TheDarkling wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote: At least the french have aircraft carriers, their own fighter aircraft and tanks.

But none of that matters because 60+ years ago the French ruling teir was filled with fascists and those without the will to fight.

It isn't like they lost a few soldiers and ran screaming from a country within the last 11 years (*cough*Somalia*cough*)

And Vietnam, we mustn't forget Dien Bien Phu.

TheDarkling wrote:It isn't like they lost a few soldiers and ran screaming from a country within the last 11 years (*cough*Somalia*cough*)

That was a political decision, not a military one. The 10th Mountain was ready to level half of Mogadishu. The French military, on the other hand, apparently lacked the will to fight a protracted campaign in 1940.

Rogue 9 wrote:Their carrier navy is a joke. Come to think of it, every carrier navy in the world except the United States Navy is a joke.

Unfortunately, their nuclear weapons aren't a joke.

Howedar wrote:

TheDarkling wrote:It isn't like they lost a few soldiers and ran screaming from a country within the last 11 years (*cough*Somalia*cough*)

That was a political decision, not a military one. The 10th Mountain was ready to level half of Mogadishu. The French military, on the other hand, apparently lacked the will to fight a protracted campaign in 1940.

Or to keep any of their colonial possessions in the Middle East or Southeast Asia.

Anyway, what's the French term for rifle?

Drapeau Blanc.

The American Empire is displeased! Now feel our wrath! Muahahaha!

Howedar wrote: That was a political decision, not a military one. The 10th Mountain was ready to level half of Mogadishu. The French military, on the other hand, apparently lacked the will to fight a protracted campaign in 1940.

No the French military leaders most of who were 70 and up lacked the will (or the intelligence) to fight and thus brought about a surrender, if somebody in the political sphere had the will to fight on I have little doubt the troops would have been there, as it was they cashed out and started licking Nazi boot.

The French military was sold out by the higher ups just as much as Clinton sold out the US army (although for differing reasons).

TheDarkling wrote:

Howedar wrote: That was a political decision, not a military one. The 10th Mountain was ready to level half of Mogadishu. The French military, on the other hand, apparently lacked the will to fight a protracted campaign in 1940.

No the French military leaders most of who were 70 and up lacked the will (or the intelligence) to fight and thus brought about a surrender, if somebody in the political sphere had the will to fight on I have little doubt the troops would have been there, as it was they cashed out and started licking Nazi boot.

The French military was sold out by the higher ups just as much as Clinton sold out the US army (although for differing reasons).

You're comparing the surrender of an army that led to the occupation of a NATION to the pull out of troops in a cause that was already questionable in the eyes of the American public?

Stravo wrote: You're comparing the surrender of an army that led to the occupation of a NATION to the pull out of troops in a cause that was already questionable in the eyes of the American public?

It only led to the occupation of half the nation, the other half as well as most the Empire remained under French control. I would also point out that the Nazi's were going to beat the French and out classed them where as the same can hardly be said about the band of AK wielding thugs the US was up against, the US also ran after far less of a fight than the French.

My point (which you have illustrated by raising specifics) is that simply seeing surrender out of context doesn't look favourably upon fairly recent US actions, and viewing the French as surrender happy because they surrendered under a specific set of circumstances 60 years ago is hardly warranted.

Shaidar Haran wrote: I did not say the US and France were enemies, what I said was that we were no longer allies and that we had largely become rivals. Right now there's no reason to believe that there's anything more than the simple divergence of US and French policies and objectives.

France hasn't been a US ally since they won the US it's independence (and even then the alliance was tenuous at best not to mention short lasting), they weren't really a US ally during WW1, there weren't during WW2 and US actions over Suez saw that they didn't remain one during the cold war. The French played their third way angle during the cold war as much as they could and now released from that constraint they are trying to mobilise a new European alliance that serves French interest (which in the short term is seeing the US humbled and cast out of European affairs).

TheDarkling wrote:

Stravo wrote: You're comparing the surrender of an army that led to the occupation of a NATION to the pull out of troops in a cause that was already questionable in the eyes of the American public?

It only led to the occupation of half the nation, the other half as well as most the Empire remained under French control. I would also point out that the Nazi's were going to beat the French and out classed them where as the same can hardly be said about the band of AK wielding thugs the US was up against, the US also ran after far less of a fight than the French.

My point (which you have illustrated by raising specifics) is that simply seeing surrender out of context doesn't look favourably upon fairly recent US actions, and viewing the French as surrender happy because they surrendered under a specific set of circumstances 60 years ago is hardly warranted.

Save that there was no surrender involved in Somalia. The US made a politcial decision to pull out of the operation.

If you want to go without specifics we can do that:

The US did not surrender in Somalia

France did on their home ground.

Stravo wrote:
Save that there was no surrender involved in Somalia. The US made a politcial decision to pull out of the operation.

If you want to go without specifics we can do that:

The US did not surrender in Somalia

France did on their home ground.

Fair enough, I think running like a scalded dog after a handful of deaths is an example of cowardice on the US's part but you are correct pulling out and going home in defeat is just shy of surrender, I could be equally pedantic and make claims that France simply got a peace deal and didn’t fully and unconditionally surrender but I care not for such quibbling.

TheDarkling wrote:

Stravo wrote:
Save that there was no surrender involved in Somalia. The US made a politcial decision to pull out of the operation.

If you want to go without specifics we can do that:

The US did not surrender in Somalia

France did on their home ground.

Fair enough, I think running like a scalded dog after a handful of deaths is an example of cowardice on the US's part but you are correct pulling out and going home in defeat is just shy of surrender, I could be equally pedantic and make claims that France simply got a peace deal and didn’t fully and unconditionally surrender but I care not for such quibbling.

There are other examples that you can use to equate the French surrender but Somalia just doesn't fit, there were no overarching vital goals at stake, the US lost a handful of soldiers, the decision was not a military one and the battle of the Black sea did not tell the US militray that they could not win, it merely said that it would be costly. None of these facts jibe with the French example:

The homeland was at stake, many military leaders lacked the will to fight, etc.

All I'm saying is that the examples don't match up. The US has not suffered that kind of humiliation, even Vietnam once again was a lack of political will and the homeland was not at stake (unless you were a rabid anti-communist)

Stravo wrote: All I'm saying is that the examples don't match up. The US has not suffered that kind of humiliation, even Vietnam once again was a lack of political will and the homeland was not at stake (unless you were a rabid anti-communist)

It isn't really about the humiliation, the discussion is about the French surrender and by extension the accusation that the French lack backbone and will constantly surrender, by comparison the US lacked backbone in Somalia and thus must always lack backbone.

Now when you raise specific issues like the homeland being at stake I could also raise mitigating circumstances such as the state of the French high command or the fact that the Nazis enjoyed such an overwhelming edge, which I repeat is my point seeing one instance of somebody lacking backbone out of context and then labelling that as their default action is inaccurate.

In essence we agree that the details were important, I am not saying the two situations are analogous apart from a demonstration of a lack of will on the parts of France/USA and when only taking a very shallow view of events (as the French bashers are doing) then most nations come out as equally guilty (not Britain of course though ).