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

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:42:56 GMT, Jerry Springer wrote:


The header came through a newsgroup in england so I would suspect that
is the source. It seems to have only taken 60 years for most of these
countries to forget how we helped keep their asses out of the fire
during WWll

Well... Remember that we weren't so eager to join in. Depending upon how one
establishes it, WWII either started in 1937 (Japanese invasion of China), 1938
(German annexation of Czechoslovakia), 1939 (German invasion of Poland, British
and French declarations of war), July 1941 (German invasion of Russia) or
December 1941 (Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor).

Note that even after Pearl Harbor, we tried to not get involved in Europe. We
didn't immediately declare war on German. We declared war on Japan only. We
didn't go to war (officially...I'm not forgetting the Reuben James) with Germany
and Italy until they subsequently declared war on us a few days later. We
liberated France and the low countries as a byproduct of defeating Germany, not
as a reason for going to war.

But we don't have to argue that point. The question is, how long after "keeping
their asses out of the fire" are they morally required to defer to the United
States? At what point is the obligation discharged? Fifty years? A hundred
years?

Remember, there wouldn't have been a United States without France. They armed
us, trained our armies, committed thousands of troops, and used their navy to
keep the British from reinforcing, supplying, or evacuating Cornwallis' army at
Yorktown.

And how did we repay France?

1790-1797: Most of the European monarchies form armies to crush the new French
Republic. United States support to France: None (other than US merchants
getting rich selling grain to all countries involved)

1798-1801: Quasi-War with France. American ships seek out French ships
(sometimes in cooperation with local British naval units) and take, burn, sink,
and destroy. Note that we're at *war* with the country that "saved our asses"
less than 20 years after Yorktown.

1803-1814: Second phase of Napoleonic wars. US support to France: None.
Wellington's troops in Portugal and Spain fed by US grain imports. US picks up
Louisiana Purchase at "Fire Sale" prices because Napoleon needs the money and
expects to lose the territories to the British anyway.

1812-1814: US at war with Great Britain, at the same time the French are. US
troops committed to defend France: None. Joint naval operation with the French
navy: None. The French allow American privateers to use their ports. US grain
ships continue to supply Wellington.

1815: Napoleon escapes from Elba, war starts anew. US support: Zero. (A
point of irony: British saved by appearance of Prussian (e.g., German) troops
at Waterloo. Little thanks they got, too.)

1854: France at war with Russia. US support: Zero.

1860: France at war with China. US support: Zero.

1870: France invaded by Prussia. US support: Zero. Post-war actions:

So...is the lack of French gratitude any more immoral than our own?

Ron "a little more gas on the fire" Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

So...is the lack of French gratitude any more immoral than our own?

To the victors geaux the spoils:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

or

http://www.google-watch.org/newsday.html

This might be a better reference point:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

The Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does
most of the fighting."

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.]


Barnyard BOb - may history trump histrionics

I'm thinking it's about time we let the rest of the world take care of it's
self.

That would be nice!

The UN

I'm thinking it's about time we let the rest of the world take care of
it's
self.

That would be nice!

The UN


The UN is a friggen joke, always has been and probably always will be. We
wouldn't be in Iraq now if the UN had done its job after the first Iraq war.

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)

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.

Rich

"Rich" wrote in message
om...
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.

Rich

http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/laf-sqr1.htm

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.

Rich


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. The French didn't support the US in Iraq because they had been
dealing around the UN sanctions for years and had everything to gain from the
status-quo.


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)

On 09 Nov 2004 13:34:31 GMT, osite (RobertR237) wrote:


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.

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

I.m not sure the motives of any country or party are ever really free of
self interest, at any time. If they were, sufficient evidence of self
interest can be conjured up so that the fact would never be clear.

In the case of the U.S. involvment in Iraq, or France's choice to avoid
participation, book could be written about how selfless or selfish their
motives are and the view you choose largely depends on the beliefs you carry
into the arguement. There is no clear answer, in the case of either country.

For those outside of the U.S. I would encourage you to keep your "insights"
to yourselves and respect the choice the American people have made. They
seem deeply divided on the topic and we outsiders shouldn't comment.

After all, you never see them interfering in anyone elses business.