Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote in message
...

Thank you very much,we'll remember that when you come begging to us to
save
your worthless asses one more time.

I believe the French came to our aid first during the American Revolution.



You are right but I am not sure their intent was so much to aid as to injure
England in any way possible. Their motivies then as with Iraq were purely
selfish.

You're absolutely, absolutely, right here, Robert. The French government's
goal
during the American Revolution was to stick it to the British, not foster the
cause of freedom.

But...how much difference does that make, when we're talking about a moral
obligation? If you are drowning and the guy who fishes you out of the water
is
the same guy to whom you owe thousands of dollars, are you then excused from
feeling any gratitude?

The point is, whether a given entity is morally obligated to assist someone
who
helped them earlier depends highly on what actions the entity is asked to
undertake.

I agree that France did not join the coalition out of purely selfish motives;
the only point that I dispute is whether they had some sort of moral
obligation
to join because of our part in liberating the country during WWII.


No, I don't believe that they owed any moral obligation to the US as a result
of WWII and I don't believe they had any direct obligation to support the US in
Iraq. I don't believe we should expect them to either. Then again, why should
we continue to maintain support for France and NATO if they are not going to
support us when needed?

What I do have a real problem with is their condemnation of the US when their
only reason was their own special interests. Those special interests may very
well have contributed to the problem by sidestepping the UN sactions and
funneling money and arms to Iraq.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:22:02 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote:

And during the Revolution, the French declared that Lafayette was a
traitor and issued a death warrant for him. It was only at the end of
the war, when the French joined (to make life hard for the Brits) that
the order was lifted.

Lafayette did travel to the new United States against the express wishes of
King
Louis..but then, Benjamin Franklin didn't want him to go, either. An arrest
warrant to try to stop him leaving the country was issued *at the demand of
the
British ambassador*. Lafayette left France against the will of his king,
against the desires of two of the three American commissioners, and with two
British ships in hot pursuit. Ya gotta admire the guy.... nineteen years
old.
Sheesh.

In any case, the American alliance with France was signed less than eight
months
after Lafayette's arrival in the US. Little chance that he was considered a
"premature anti-Briton". :-)

However, Lafayette WAS declared a traitor and forced to leave France during
the
French revolution. He was one of the early leaders of the revolution, was in
command of its first formal armed unit (the National Guard). He was
considered
a traitor to his class by the Royalists, but others in the revolution didn't
consider him radical enough. He was eventually denounced as a traitor by
post-revolution national council and forced to flee.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:11:28 -0600, Barnyard BOb -
wrote:
So...is the lack of French gratitude any more immoral than our own?

Ron "a little more gas on the fire" Wanttaja
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When you're as old as I am.... DEPENDS.
[Just in case you were seeking an answer.]

I have to defer to the one man who was at both the liberation of Paris and
the
Battle of Brandywine. :-)

Ron Wanttaja


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)