Skip to comments.Knocking the French: Why?
Posted on 07/29/2006 5:20:07 PM PDT by SuzyQ2
But we Americans seem to have short memories.
What else could explain the fact that we, generally speaking, so-often lambaste the French, calling them cowards for not allying themselves fully with us in every instance? We constantly throw in their faces the fact that we came to their rescue in World Wars I and II. And weve all heard the jokes: Surplus French military rifles for sale. Never fired. Dropped once.
(Excerpt) Read more at navyseals.com ...
"When WWII started they just were not prepared or had the gumption to stick it out"
they really didn't have a chance, also belgium not letting france and gb deploy pre-emptively and instead becoming neutral guaranteed germany had a not-so-opposed entry into NE france. once the armor was on the ground, who was going to stop it at that point?
i think post-occupation collaboration was a far bigger shame issue than losing to the german military of that time.
Hank: "Hey, Homer. I'm keeping two of my fingers crossed that you're gonna have that nuclear generator up to full power by tomorrow."
Homer: "Uh, yes, sir. No problemo."
Hank: "Good. By the way, which is your least favorite country? Italy or France?"
Hank: "Heh, heh, heh. Nobody ever says Italy."
Homer is far smarter than Chirac!
To answer Mr. Twain: Because Frenchmen don't die... they surrender to their own mortality.
Because their greatest soldier was a woman, their greatest General was an Italian, and their graditude is as good as their memory?
Hell, Chirac caved to the rioters. So having run out of everybody else, the French have surrendered to the French.
It's not a "world war" until france surrenders.
I do. How about Citizen Genet?
You should have tried German, a language they are equally familiar with, and very prone to accomodate.
They didn't have a chance because of their own choices - trusting their entire defence to the (admittedly formidable) Maginot Line. They simply ignored the parts of their border it could not defend and allocated virtually nothing to any defence in depth.
They were doomed by the arrogant assumption that the enemy would stupidly attack them where they were strongest.
Also, Americans tend to slam the French a bit too much; it seems that although there has been a sort of culture wars between the United States and France since their revolution, there are only some French which disdain the United States whilst many Americans disdain France.
France has one of the highest birthrates in Europe, though some of this could be from their immigrant population--largely Muslim, too.
And the Marquis de Lafayette. While the French government only supported the war to attack the British, and so that they could regain New France, their were Frenchmen who were supportive of the United States (also, why would an absolute monarchy support the creation of a nonmonarchial government?). The British were the United States traditional enemy until around the late 1800's. France, while having a cultural war with the United States, has never had a political one (though during Napoleon's time it got close to one).
Weren't the French against going into iraq from the get go?
Let's not forget that in the former case, they also promptly executed her when she became politically awkward, instead of giving her something else to do.
And let's also not forget that Napoleon had his @$$ handed to him by a British footwear designer at Waterloo; his troops broke and ran. Even the Old Guard couldn't stop the inevitable at that point.
If anything, the Quebeçois are trying to out-French the French. They have a worse rep, IMHO. However, the rest of the Francophone world is still pretty bad, just not arrogant (Francophone sections of the world seem to be the most corrupt places - see Louisiana.)