French war planes flying over Lybia

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I want to feel your brain.

Hey there You. So you like my brain? It houses my dirty little mind .

[davec.0121]

I appear to have come a little late to the party, but there are some interesting points in this thread. Some of them are not particularly intelligent or well-thought out, but interesting.

Raphael: you should discard your Franco-centric history books and look at what really happened. Firstly, the U.S. saved the Free World, including France, 3 times in the 20th Century, from 3 different tyrannies. The French Army, on the other hand, has an unmatched record of defeat: World War I: took the Brits and the Americans to save them. World War II: citing one well fought battle -Bir Hakem-doesn't make up for the utter collapse of France in 1940, surrendering to Germany after only 6 weeks, and then collaborating with them. Viet Nam: despite massive American support (money and equipment), they were run out, enduring 2 major defeats in the last year of the war (Dien Bien Phu and the destruction of Groupe Mobile 100 in the highlands); in contrast, the North Vietnamese never defeated U.S. forces in a major battle. And let's not forget Algeria. History, not histrionics, shows that it is difficult to extol the achievements of the French Army in the last 100 years.

Also, Carter (not my favorite) actually had very little to do with the fall of the Shah. Internal events, particularly the revulsion against his police state and his over-ambitious reforms, had overtaken him and, most critically, the army and security forces refused to support him. Consequently, he was doomed. There was nothing Carter could have done to prop him up any further. The same is true with Mubarak. Once the army made it clear that it would not forcibly repress the demonstrators, Mubarak was also doomed. What could/should Obama (or any one else) have done to prevent it?

And, as an aside, you perhaps should not throw stones at Bill Clinton's morals when Mitterand had his illegitimate daughter accompany him on official trips.

About Obama and committing U.S. forces: he actually did comply with the War Powers Act, which gave him 48 hours to notify Congress of committing U.S. forces.

As Olivia points out, an attack on John McCain as an naval aviator is inexcusable. While you may question his political judgement of late, he is an honorable man who served our country well in conditions we can't even begin to imagine.

And as Olivia also points out (smart lady that she is), what we saw during the Cold War, which the U.S. won, was a series of proxy wars with the Soviet Union as both sides jockeyed for power. These wars were fought under the Containment Doctrine of Truman, where we (or our proxies) would meet any attempt by the Soviet Union (or its proxies) to expand. These proxy wars include Greece, Korea, the Congo, Viet Nam, El Salvador, Afghanistan, etc. The idea of the U.S. and the Soviet Union directly confronting each other militarily was recognized by both sides as a recipe for world annihilation. In fact, both countries were very careful not to seriously provoke the other side. The only exceptions were Berlin and the Cuban missile crisis, and in each case, both sides backed down. Although the U.S. did not win in Viet Nam, the defeat was due to political, not military reasons (unlike the French debacle). The ultimate prize was judged not to be worth the cost. It should also be pointed out that the Cold War lasted for over 40 years and the U.S. did not falter in leading and protecting the Free World. Quoting Olivia once more, we were 'the last man standing.'

FYI, the French war planes attacked only after the U.S. appeared to support the U.N. resolution.

Which leads to the key point: why are we there and how do we get out? Obama has been very indecisive on what to do, and appeared unable to withstand the pressure from people who (forgeting Iraq) were eager to have us intervene again. Consequently, he desperately wanted the U.N. to make the decision about the situation so that he wouldn't have to, and have to bear the responsibility. Events show that once the decision was made by somebody, the military operation went well, thanks to the American Tomahawk cruise missiles suppressing the air defence.

However, the political situation is now hopelessly confused for lack of leadership, with no one able to agree as to who should run the show, or how. The Italians want NATO, while the French want a small group (including them) to make the decisions. The U.S. is still trying to determine our position. Consequently, we've had military action taken before we defined our reasons, our goals, the command and control structure, the parameters of engagement, etc. Most importantly, we haven't defined our exit strategy. Consequently, the whole process of committing more U.S. forces to another war has been a shambles and everything is being done ad hoc.

My personal opinion is that the fighting in Libya does not have a direct influence on our national security. If the Italians, British, Spanish, Arab League, and French feel it is important to support the rebels, then they should do it, if they can. However, as was shown in the Balkans in Bosnia and Kosovo, the European powers do not appear to be capable of intervening successfully without the Americans taking the lead and supplying the muscle, as we're doing here.

At the end of the day, this is all the Libyans' problem, not ours. We actually should sit this one out.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Regarding Post #62: I have no complaints. Helluva post.

[Raphael]

As soon as tensions wane, a new one pops up and starts the whole mess over...

Perhaps davec should have not taken so literally what were nothing more than mocking answers to the xenophobic stupidity of some of the morons who have posted earlier

And before he presumes to lecture at me about history he should appraise himself of two facts. First, I have a Ph.D in History, from an Ivy-League level University. Second, World War One involved two competing systems of alliances (Germany/Austria/Turkey VS France/Britain and Russia - then the USA), and not a case of any one country needing help from any other.

Lastly, unlike Americans, the French do not claim to be moral; in fact, they pride themselves on their amorality. Early in his presidency, Valery Giscard d'Estaing was reported to have had a car accident, driving alone back to the presidential palace during the wee hours of the night. When the news got out that he was returning from a night with his mistress, his opinion polls, which had been bad, shot up to 80% approval. So davec, inform yourself before you drag the daughter Francois Mitterand recognized, and his wife Danielle accepted, into the equation.

Nor was the United States likely to have won a two front war with the two dominating super powers of those days, during World War Two, without its alliance with the Soviet Union and the terrible sacrifice consented by the Russian People.

The Cold War itself was not won by the USA alone. It was won by the combined efforts of the USA, Western Europe and China, encircling the Russians and choking them to death + the role of dissidents and of muslim fundamentalists inside the Iron Curtain, in demoralizing the regime.

Viet-Nam, like the bay of pigs, was the consequence of the rashness and imprudence of an attractive but failed President, John Kennedy, who brought foreign policy disasters on his country, even as his aggressivity provoked the Soviet Union into aggresivity of its own, in Cuba, in Mozambique, in Angola, in Ethiopia, in Costa Rica, and ultimately (to their own regrets, no doubt, but that's another story), in Afghanistan - thereby undoing the benefits of the wiser Foreign Policy of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Enlightened American patriots concern themselves with fixing up a flawed selection system of presidential candidates, not blaming the UN, the French, the Chinese, Arabs, Fox TV, the Liberal Media, Christians, or whoever else they like to pick on, depending on which party or church they belong to. The aura of stupidity that emanated from Georges W. Bush made America the laughing stock of the world (it also explains why so few nations were willing to follow him in Iraq, which no longer was a threat to anyone, while so many who did bowed out as soon as they could); while the weakness and indecision of Barak Obama is creating yet more doubt, which is even worse.

Ha, but I forgot! America has the solution to all its problems, waiting in the wing: a general more victorious than Georges Washington, an author more prophetic than Thomas Jefferson, a gun-totting hunter more manly than Andrew Jackson, a unifier more forceful than Abraham Lincoln, the epic Sarah Palin

And Sarah, she has the bestest running mate a God-fearing country could ever want: Kewt Newt Gingrich, who bullied a dying wife into signing divorce papers and cheated on the next, even as he pushed for the impeachment of Billy "Goat" Clinton, over a blow job.

[NorthWood]

What Dave said: +1

Whatever Rafael says: -1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Raphael

..... what were nothing more than mocking answers to the xenophobic stupidity of some of the morons who have posted earlier .......

...... First, I have a Ph.D in History, from an Ivy-League level University.

Spoken like a true, condescendingly arragont "Franchman" .... which demonstrates another point ..... anyone can get a "Ph.d" ... even French.

.. the question is does a Ph.D in History, from an Ivy-League level University" trump a B.A. in History from AN IVY-LEAGUE UNIVERSITY?

http://www.waldenu.edu/Degree-Programs/Doctorate.htm

Unfortunately, Raphrance, by unnecessarily fluffing your purported superiority and credentials in a lame attempt to criticize the U.S. role in the world in comparison to the "contribution" of France, you have made yourself the center of attention (negative, of course) and detracted from the actual positive contributions that are currently being made by honorable French-warriors who are putting themselves in harms way in what may end up being an unpopular effort for an unfortunate "ending."

As for your "history" degree, either you skipped some classes, were fed French nonsense and propoganda, or you did some "outside" reading of translations originally authored by delusional arm-chair French military writers.

So, 10,000 French soldiers did NOT surrender in S.E. Asia?

[tbone2u]

For those interested....I have about a dozen French army rifles that I am trying to sell. They have never been fired but have been dropped many times. ( they still work). Anyone interested...send me a pm.

[davec.0121]

Ah, Raphael, I can't let this one pass by. Yes, I do see where you attempt to be sarcastic, mocking, and ironical. Unfortunately, you let your contempt for the U.S. come through too strongly for that approach to be particularly effective.

The U.S. 'provoked' Soviet aggression? Spoken like a true "Ivy-League-level' historical revisionist. History, of which I've read a little, shows that Russia/Soviet Union/Russia has been traditionally expansionist since before Peter the Great. Your 'provoked' thesis breaks down in view of the Soviet Union's actions before Kennedy became president. Starting with the annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, through Poland in 1945 (where it imposed it's own government without elections), Greece in 1947, Korea in 1950, Hungary in 1956, etc., the Soviet Union clearly showed that it was bent on expanding it influence and control, whether for security purposes, to further the proletariat revolution, or for raw imperialism. The reasons that it acted farther afield in 60's to 80's were that it then had proxies to do it for them (see preceding discussions) and it had acquired the capability to project power. To even imply that the U.S. 'provoked' Soviet behavior in the post-war world is revisionism of the worst sort.

Yes, I know Mitterand's wife had agreed to the equation. But then, so did Bill's. And in regard to morality, we know the French are amoral. But is that really something to be proud of? Have you (assuming you're French) forgotten the principles that you adopted from the American Revolution. And yes, before you go ballistic, the basic principles of freedom and equality and democracy were first established as a basis of government by the American Revolution. You can look it up in any "Ivy-league-level" library. (Declaration of Independence: 1776; Constitution: 1787; French Revolution: 1789.)

Yes, I agree, the Soviets suffered mightily in defeating Germany. However, they could not have defeated the Nazis without U.S. assistance. What you forget is the context: the U.S. could easily have retreated into isolationism (as was advocated by many) and chosen to defend Fortress America, rather than get involved in the global war. Had we chosen to reach arrangements with the Japanese and Germans to protect our interests, we could have sat it out, unlike the other countries. Instead, Roosevelt did everything he could to lead the U.S. into the war on the side of the allies in the face of significant opposition at home. Remember, up until WWII there was a very strong isolationist streak in the U.S. And, truth be told, we did defeat the Japanese essentially by ourselves.

In regard to the Cold War, you are being perhaps overly generous to the contributions of the Western Europeans, since the U.S. contributed most of the political, economic, and military power. At a time when the only thing between the Soviet Army and the English Channel was asphalt, the U.S. said that an attack on Western Europe was an attack on the U.S. In other words, Eisenhower (a very good president) offered up the U.S. as a nuclear hostage to protect Europe. China gave very little assistance in the Cold War since they were more concerned with internal problems and were nominal allies of the Soviet Union. While they were not particularly friendly, they did not then constitute a major threat.

The causes of the fall of the Soviet Union are numerous and endlessly debated. Two good books are "Apocalpse Averted" and "Lenin's Tomb". By the 80's the Soviet Union was an economic basket case due to it's political and economic system and the stagnation of the Brezhnev era. The only thing that kept it afloat was oil money (just like now). A perfect storm of collapsing oil prices (see, it is all about oil), increased arms budgets, lack of innovation or any social progress, and a deeply cynical and apathetic population combined to force Gorbachev to try to reform. That, of course, let the genie out of the bottle. Once the Soviet security forces refused to use force on their own people (e.g., August 1991), the whole system was doomed. The dissidents, while heroic, had little to do with its demise.

And so on and so on. Yes, I agree with you about the quality of thought in some of the posts on this thread. But that's the same everywhere. Some of the dumbest, most non-sensical, illogical people I've ever met were in graduate school. What you fail to see is that by throwing F-Bombs (in this case, French Bombs), you obscure your own theses and merely provoke the reactions that you say you loathe. Or is that actually your intention.

And finally, I'll ask you the same question I ask other foreigners here who are down on the U.S.: if you are so contemptuous of the U.S., as apparently you are, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by davec.0121

Yes, I know Mitterand's wife had agreed to the equation. But then, so did Bill's. And in regard to morality, we know the French are amoral. But is that really something to be proud of? Have you (assuming you're French) forgotten the principles that you adopted from the American Revolution. And yes, before you go ballistic, the basic principles of freedom and equality and democracy were first established as a basis of government by the American Revolution. You can look it up in any "Ivy-league-level" library. (Declaration of Independence: 1776; Constitution: 1787; French Revolution: 1789.)

Perhaps it was the Frenchmen's prideful amorality that turned their revolution into a bloodbath "reign of terror", and from there to Napoleon, while America's uptight morality channeled our revolution into mankind's best hope.

[davec.0121]

Oh, Raphael, one thing I forgot:

At the start of WWI, the Triple Alliance was not "Germany/Austria/Turkey, but Germany, Austria, and Italy. Turkey was not part of any system and only entered the war on the side of the Central Powers later, October 1914 I think. Italy backed out of its alliance and joined the war on the allies side in 1915.

It should also be noted that in 1918 Ludendorf's series of desperation offensives on the Western Front had the British and especially the French losing a lot of ground, even endangering Paris. It was the insertion of American forces, in places like Belleau Wood and on the Marne, that stopped the Germans.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by davec.0121

In regard to the Cold War, you are being perhaps overly generous to the contributions of the Western Europeans,...

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

I recall Ike and Cronkite paying a "last visit" to Flanders in memory of those who did not come home from liberating France, ......

... while at that very moment the French were loading up U.S. grain on Soviet ships that the French had "purchased" from the U.S. for the Russians, since the U.S. had an embargo on grain sales to the Soviet.

Is that a "contribution"?

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by davec.0121

........................

And finally, I'll ask you the same question I ask other foreigners here who are down on the U.S.: if you are so contemptuous of the U.S., as apparently you are, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Exactly! Anything I would add to your post Davec.0121 would be redundant. But, why for the love of God and money do people that aren’t from the States stay here if THEY DETEST IT SO MUCH. To state the obvious again, but your hatred of all that is American only flatters us.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

.... why for the love of God and money do people that aren’t from the States stay here if THEY DETEST IT SO MUCH.....

For one, they came here believing that "we" don't work for what we have, and rather than simply admit the fallacy of their folly, they criticize what "we" have earned. Secondly, do you recall in your childhood having the experience of another child breaking something you had ... if they could not have it, they were going to deprive you of it. Thirdly, they cannot climb up, so they will attempt to drag you down.

It is not, in my opinion, that they "detest," ... it is resentment.

[essence]

+1 to all those who have tried to back their views with facts.

-1 to all those who come with assumptions and big frying pans hitting people over the head.

I see nothing in Raphael's posts here to indicate he hates the US. Well known behaviour, if US citizens criticise quality of it's leadership, no problem, if somebody from outside does, all hell breaks loose.

Americans are, in my experience, generally lovely people and intelligent, but they could be a bit more sensitive to the dangers arising from being a world power.

I don;t judge the French by my experiences with Parisian taxi drivers, I don't judge the US by comments on a SHMB.

US saving the world? Watch this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5b_1205415894

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTOPJFsj8gU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiKc37mhy58


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc47Wcso3hU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BYRx7lLZf8

[JohnnyFarangly]

AJDABIYA, Libya — Libyan rebels seized control of the strategic eastern city of Ajdabiya from Moammar Gadhafi's forces on Saturday, according to reports and witnesses.
The BBC reported that the rebels were celebrating in the streets of Ajdabiya after a seventh night of airstrikes by western warplanes.