or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What are the best friends of your country?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the best friends of your country? - Page 13  

post #181 of 266
Quote:
It's interesting, whenever ernest gets involved in something, people embark on a demonization of the French that is tantamount to a pogrom.
But he starts it. P.S.: "Pogrom" strikes me as a bit much.
post #182 of 266
The gist of what one can take away from the various posts of people here about the French is summed up in my last post. It's interesting how these attitudes can be used to isolate and hate any minority one doesn't like, isn't it?
post #183 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
There are about 80,000 American soldiers buried in France from WWII... just for reference.  The US lost 2 1/2 as many soldiers killed as France, and the war was FOUGHT in france.
French didn't fight so much. And then? They had the right to choose not to fight if they didn't want to do. What would you say about Italy, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Swisserland, Croatia, Bulgaria if you blame France?
post #184 of 266
Actually, I rather like the French, I'm fond of their wines and cuisine, and like their art and cultural traditions, I just have an issue with any sort of revisionist history that claims that France has had any sort of military success in the past 200 years (beyond Suez, as I've stated in the past).
post #185 of 266
Quote:
What I also found interesting is the mobilization of American troups during WW2. In the first 1,5 years it took them a lot of time to assemble the necessary troups and to deploy them. But after that the speed at which they sent out troops was very impressive.
this is a very intersting aspect - before the war germany had an industrial ase built on the traditions of craftsmanship and less on mass production. it seemed to many people inconcievable that the US could ramp up in a short time the amount of material that was needed to fight a war, due to lack of trained craftsmen. the US approached this in an industrial manner, figuring out how to bypass the "craftsmanship" and reach an ability ot mass produce the needed equipment. this included a similar attitude towards recruiting and training personnel - the size of the standing army and the reserves in the US were never great, the US was able to recruit and train huge numbers of people fast, without having a traditional core of "military families" to fall back on.
post #186 of 266
Quote:
The gist of what one can take away from the various posts of people here about the French is summed up in my last post.  It's interesting how these attitudes can be used to isolate and hate any minority one doesn't like, isn't it?
Yeah, it's an unattractive part of human nature.  What're ya gonna do.  It would make much, much more sense for us to focus all of our bile on Ernest personally. But isn't violence required to take place before we call something a pogrom?
post #187 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,23:26) There are about 80,000 American soldiers buried in France from WWII... just for reference. The US lost 2 1/2 as many soldiers killed as France, and the war was FOUGHT in france.
French didn't fight so much. And then? They had the right to choose not to fight if they didn't want to do. What would you say about Italy, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Swisserland, Croatia, Bulgaria if you blame France?
Right, they surrendered and the US did their fighting for them. Of course, they still have a proud military tradition and the US only fights against Mexicans and Vietnamese... listen to yourself... Bringing up Vietnam is VERY laughable, you don't remember Dien Bien Phu do you? http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/index.htm
post #188 of 266
Quote:
Actually, I rather like the French, I'm fond of their wines and cuisine, and like their art and cultural traditions, I just have an issue with any sort of revisionist history that claims that France has had any sort of military success in the past 200 years (beyond Suez, as I've stated in the past).
d, you are cutting it close, the french had some military success 193 years ago
post #189 of 266
I greatly admire French civilization and culture, but the French themselves, well ... one on one, I can like them. But there is something not right in the collective brain of a country in which more than half the people think the US government staged the 9/11 attacks.
post #190 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(Roy @ Feb. 25 2005,14:17) What I also found interesting is the mobilization of American troups during WW2. In the first 1,5 years it took them a lot of time to assemble the necessary troups and to deploy them. But after that the speed at which they sent out troops was very impressive.
this is a very intersting aspect - before the war germany had an industrial ase built on the traditions of craftsmanship and less on mass production. it seemed to many people inconcievable that the US could ramp up in a short time the amount of material that was needed to fight a war, due to lack of trained craftsmen. the US approached this in an industrial manner, figuring out how to bypass the "craftsmanship" and reach an ability ot mass produce the needed equipment. this included a similar attitude towards recruiting and training personnel - the size of the standing army and the reserves in the US were never great, the US was able to recruit and train huge numbers of people fast, without having a traditional core of "military families" to fall back on.
This is rather interesting, the US certainly didn't have the 10 years or so that the Russians had to try to build up a military (with very little success, i might add) The US's success in building an all-volunteer professional army in the last 40 years is a very interesting case study as well. Rumsfield may have caused nearly unfixable damage to the military apparatus with his insipid light and mobile campaign though, although they've since seen the error of that particular strategy...
post #191 of 266
The French deserve much more credit than they are given for their performance in WWI. And the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was not the fiasco/joke for them that it is now assumed to be.
post #192 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,23:26) There are about 80,000 American soldiers buried in France from WWII... just for reference.  The US lost 2 1/2 as many soldiers killed as France, and the war was FOUGHT in france.
French didn't fight so much. And then? They had the right to choose not to fight if they didn't want to do. What would you say about Italy, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Swisserland, Croatia, Bulgaria if you blame France?
none of these want to pretend to e a world power. Look, E, if you are going to wear a dress and keep talking about being a girl, somebody is going to ask to see you plumbing. same thing here - the french are so hung up on being a world power that it seems clownish to everybody else.
post #193 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,14:32) Actually, I rather like the French, I'm fond of their wines and cuisine, and like their art and cultural traditions, I just have an issue with any sort of revisionist history that claims that France has had any sort of military success in the past 200 years (beyond Suez, as I've stated in the past).
d, you are cutting it close, the french had some military success 193 years ago
Well, 194 years ago, you're right... They did lose in 1812 (thus the 1812 overture) as Napoleon's armies were driven in disarray from Russia... the Grand Armee lost about 2/3 of its soldiers during that campaign.
post #194 of 266
Quote:
The French deserve much more credit than they are given for their performance in WWI. And the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was not the fiasco/joke for them that it is now assumed to be.
The French fought bravely in WWI, but they probably would still be in the trenches now, if not for US intervention... The British deserve much credit there as well... As for the Franco-Prussian war, Bismarck and the Germans could have made it a lot worse than it ended up being...
post #195 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(globetrotter @ Feb. 25 2005,14:32)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy,Feb. 25 2005,14:17
What I also found interesting is the mobilization of American troups during WW2. In the first 1,5 years it took them a lot of time to assemble the necessary troups and to deploy them. But after that the speed at which they sent out troops was very impressive.
this is a very intersting aspect - before the war germany had an industrial ase built on the traditions of craftsmanship and less on mass production. it seemed to many people inconcievable that the US could ramp up in a short time the amount of material that was needed to fight a war, due to lack of trained craftsmen. the US approached this in an industrial manner, figuring out how to bypass the "craftsmanship" and reach an ability ot mass produce the needed equipment. this included a similar attitude towards recruiting and training personnel - the size of the standing army and the reserves in the US were never great, the US was able to recruit and train huge numbers of people fast, without having a traditional core of "military families" to fall back on.
This is rather interesting, the US certainly didn't have the 10 years or so that the Russians had to try to build up a military (with very little success, i might add)   The US's success in building an all-volunteer professional army in the last 40 years is a very interesting case study as well.  Rumsfield may have caused nearly unfixable damage to the military apparatus with his insipid light and mobile campaign though, although they've since seen the error of that particular strategy...
I hope that this war doesn't destroy the national guard/ reserves issue. it may be hard to get a good reserve force together after this, but I hope that people are thinking about how to manage this after the war.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What are the best friends of your country?