France Burns!

pigo wrote:

Considering that the rioters are muslims and of African or Arab
decent but are actually french citizens, which side gets to
surrender?

The French had our backs at Yorktown and covered the left wing in
Desert Storm. Their defense on the Marne in 1914 was nothing short of
spectacular. They proved their mettle at Verdun and cemented that
reputation in Indochina. Yet among Bush supporters, the French are
surrenderers. Why? Because they weren't as good as the Wehrmacht in
1940? I doubt the US army could have stood up to the Germans that year.


French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set, but France
is not only our oldest ally, but a valuable partner in the al Qaeda
War:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201361_pf.html

Jeff

On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

pigo wrote:

Considering that the rioters are muslims and of African or Arab
decent but are actually french citizens, which side gets to
surrender?

The French had our backs at Yorktown and covered the left wing in
Desert Storm. Their defense on the Marne in 1914 was nothing short of
spectacular. They proved their mettle at Verdun and cemented that
reputation in Indochina. Yet among Bush supporters, the French are
surrenderers. Why? Because they weren't as good as the Wehrmacht in
1940? I doubt the US army could have stood up to the Germans that year.


French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set, but France
is not only our oldest ally, but a valuable partner in the al Qaeda
War:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201361_pf.html


It doesn't matter. They had the colossal gall to not take orders
direct from GWB, so they must be slagged at every opportunity.
Didn't you get the memo?

bw

bdubya wrote:
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:


pigo wrote:

Considering that the rioters are muslims and of African or Arab
decent but are actually french citizens, which side gets to
surrender?

The French had our backs at Yorktown and covered the left wing in
Desert Storm. Their defense on the Marne in 1914 was nothing short of
spectacular. They proved their mettle at Verdun and cemented that
reputation in Indochina. Yet among Bush supporters, the French are
surrenderers. Why? Because they weren't as good as the Wehrmacht in
1940? I doubt the US army could have stood up to the Germans that year.


French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set, but France
is not only our oldest ally, but a valuable partner in the al Qaeda
War:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201361_pf.html



It doesn't matter. They had the colossal gall to not take orders
direct from GWB, so they must be slagged at every opportunity.
Didn't you get the memo?

I'm convinced the bush-leaguers just don't know even basic recent
history. They probably think Head Standard's are the latest rage.

lal_truckee wrote:

I'm convinced the bush-leaguers just don't know even basic recent
history. They probably think Head Standard's are the latest rage.

Oh, C'mon. Most of them don't even ski. When you say Head Standard,
they think you're talking about this:

http://www.americanstandard-us.com/

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
lal_truckee wrote:

I'm convinced the bush-leaguers just don't know even basic recent
history. They probably think Head Standard's are the latest rage.

Oh, C'mon. Most of them don't even ski. When you say Head Standard,
they think you're talking about this:

http://www.americanstandard-us.com/

Didn't we just hear that there was an article about Scooter and his boss in
Ski (or Skiing)?

AstroPax wrote:
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set,

...and almost as popular as American bashing is among many young
Europeans, as they sit at an outdoor cafe wearing Levi's and Nikes
while sipping on Starbucks coffee.

Starbucks?!? C'mon they don't drink that weak-assed poor excuse for
coffee in Europe.

Anyway, you can have my Cote du Rhone when you pry it out of my cold
drunken fingers.

//Walt

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set,

...and almost as popular as American bashing is among many young
Europeans, as they sit at an outdoor cafe wearing Levi's and Nikes
while sipping on Starbucks coffee.

I think your argument would have more force if you used actual American
products as examples.

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set,

...and almost as popular as American bashing is among many young
Europeans, as they sit at an outdoor cafe wearing Levi's and Nikes
while sipping on Starbucks coffee.


I thought I understood your point until you mentioned clothing made in
Indonesia and coffee from South America.

AstroPax wrote:
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

The French had our backs at Yorktown

More to do with Lafayette, and less to do with the French government.

They were motivated more by the greater Anglo-Gallic struggle for
Empire but it marked the start of our longest alliance. Unlike Israel -
the darling of the neo-cons, France actually has a treaty obligation to
the United States.

and covered the left wing in Desert Storm.

It's a "flank", not a "wing".

Regardless, there is a very specific reason why Schawarzkopf assigned
the French to the west flank...out into the middle of an empty
desert...where the French would almost certainly meet little, if any
resistance from (non-existent) Iraqi ground forces.

Schwarzkopf's deployment says nothing about French involvement or the
state of Franco-American relationships.

BTW, I notice you conveniently failed to mention that France denied
the US over-flight rights in 1986 when we bombed Libya from bases in
the UK (Operation El Dorado Canyon).

Would you expect the US to grant France fly-over rights for Pacific
bombing targets? BTW: I noticed you conveniently ignored French
contributions to the al Qaeda War.

When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia for Operation Southern Watch, a
small contingent of the French Air Force was also there. Why? Well,
I'll tell you why...we all knew they where there for one reason...and
that was to *spy* on us!

I'm skeptical.

"bdubya" wrote in message
news
On 14 Nov 2005 05:45:41 -0800, "Jeff" wrote:

pigo wrote:

Considering that the rioters are muslims and of African or Arab
decent but are actually french citizens, which side gets to
surrender?

The French had our backs at Yorktown and covered the left wing in
Desert Storm. Their defense on the Marne in 1914 was nothing short
of
spectacular. They proved their mettle at Verdun and cemented that
reputation in Indochina. Yet among Bush supporters, the French are
surrenderers. Why? Because they weren't as good as the Wehrmacht in
1940? I doubt the US army could have stood up to the Germans that
year.


French-bashing is a favorite pastime among the neo-con set, but
France
is not only our oldest ally, but a valuable partner in the al Qaeda
War:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201361_pf.html


It doesn't matter. They had the colossal gall to not take orders
direct from GWB, so they must be slagged at every opportunity.
Didn't you get the memo?

They had the colossal gall to manipulate the oil for food program for
billions of dollars contrary to what they had agreed to. Then they
conspired with Saadam to try to keep us out of there to keep us from
finding out about their treachery.