0
   

I wonder why people continue to dislike the French...

 
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 09:57 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

The French people are OK but their nation is not and never has been our friend.


But there was actually never a war between the U.S and France.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 01:34 am
Not true. We fought a naval war with the French over free use of the seas under President Jefferson in 1805. Moreover the American colonists fought a war with the French and their Huron allies in the Ohio river valley in the so-called French and Indian War of 1755-1760. Finally we were effectively at war with the Vichy government of France during the latter part of WWII.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 01:55 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Twelve years later, at the height of the Cold War, the French withdrew from the NATO military alliance and summarily kicked all NATO. forces out of France.


That's not true:

In 1965, President Charles de Gaulle of France announced that France would withdraw from the integrated military structure of NATO. The decision was made official in March 1966 and meant that, while France was part of the decision making, French forces would not be under the operational control of NATO commanders. France also announced that it would pursue its own nuclear deterrent against any possible aggression.

In 1971, I was doing a reserve execise in France, one of the biggest multi-national in those times: 286 ships took part, e.g. from the USA, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, Germany and (the majority) of France.
Under "my command" (= since the German commanding officer was on our boat [DBRU - MSC Wetzlar] and the total command for the [invading] forces changed frequently, and Petty Officer [Res] Walter Hinteler was in charge of the UHF-operations) were about 200 warships, amongst them several from the USNavy and French ones. :wink:
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:16 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
maybe a lot of people find the french to be arrogant ass holes...just like they find americans..


In Germany there are little tour boats which go along the Rhine and other rivers, and occasionally a group of French teenagers will get on one of those. When that happens the other passengers usually get off and demand their money back and get it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:17 am
gungasnake wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
maybe a lot of people find the french to be arrogant ass holes...just like they find americans..


In Germany there are little tour boats which go along the Rhine and other rivers, and occasionally a group of French teenagers will get on one of those. When that happens the other passengers usually get off and demand their money back and get it.


Question
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:20 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Not true. We fought a naval war with the French over free use of the seas under President Jefferson in 1805. Moreover the American colonists fought a war with the French and their Huron allies in the Ohio river valley in the so-called French and Indian War of 1755-1760. Finally we were effectively at war with the Vichy government of France during the latter part of WWII.


When American troops were about to land in Morocco in 43, we told the French to aim their searchlights skyward as a sign of agreement and friendship. The Vichy French did that, AND THEN began shelling the American forces, so that all French ships in the harbor had to be destroyed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:25 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Not true. We fought a naval war with the French over free use of the seas under President Jefferson in 1805. Moreover the American colonists fought a war with the French and their Huron allies in the Ohio river valley in the so-called French and Indian War of 1755-1760. Finally we were effectively at war with the Vichy government of France during the latter part of WWII.


Just bringing back to memory that the first ever war, the USA was fighting, was from 1775-1783 against Great Britain.

There was the "Quasi-War" against France 1798-1800:

Quote:
Quasi-War with France

Secretary of the Navy Benjamin Stoddert realized that the navy possessed too few warships to protect a far-flung merchant marine by using convoys or by patrolling the North American coast. Rather, he concluded that the best way to defeat the French campaign against American shipping was by offensive operations in the Carribean, where most of the French cruisers were based. Thus at the very outset of the conflict, the Department of the Navy adopted a policy of going to the source of the enemy's strength. Nevertheless, by 1799, in response to teh merchant's insistent demands for protection, naval vessels were convoying merchant ships in the Caribbean in addition to cruising against the enemy.


When Stoddert became secretary in June 1798, only one American naval vessel was deployed. By the end of the year a force of twenty ships was planned for the Caribbean. Before the war ended, the force available to the navy approached thirty vessels, with some 700 officers and 5,000 seamen.


The highlight of the first year of the undeclared war was the capture by Thomas Truxtun's Constellation of the French frigate l'Insurgente in February 1799. In addition, American naval vessels seized nineteen French privateers during the winter of 1798-99. The French challenge to American naval forces increased late in 1799 as six French warships arrived in the Antilles with instructions to intensify the commercial war. The American squadrons responded aggressively. Constellation fought to a draw the more powerful la Vengeance on 1 February 1800. Silas Talbot engineered an expedition in the Puerto Plata harbor in St. Domingo, a possession of France's ally Spain, on 11 May 1800 in which a naval force under Lieutenant Isaac Hull cut out the French privateer Sandwich from the harbor and spiked the guns in the Spanish fort. By the end of the war American ships had made prizes of approximately eighty-five French vessels. American successes resulted from a combination of Stoddert's administrative skill in deploying effectively his limited forces and the initiative of his seagoing officers.


Although they were fighting the same enemy, the Royal Navy and the United States Navy did not cooperate operationally, nor did they share operational plans or come to mutual understandings about deployment of their forces. The British did sell the American government naval stores and munitions. And the two navies shared a system of signals by which to recognize each other's warships at sea and allowed merchantmen of their respective nations to join their convoys.13


By October 1800, aggressiveness of the cruisers of the United States Navy, as well as those of the Royal Navy, combined with a more conciliatory diplomatic stance by the French toward America, produced a reduction in the activity of the French privateers and warships. In mid-December 1800 news reached Washington that a peace treaty with France (Convention of Mortefontaine, 30 September 1800) ended the Quasi-War.
Source


What was this 1805 war about?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:40 am
gungasnake wrote:

When American troops were about to land in Morocco in 43, we told the French to aim their searchlights skyward as a sign of agreement and friendship. The Vichy French did that, AND THEN began shelling the American forces, so that all French ships in the harbor had to be destroyed.


Did they land twice in Marocco, again after the first landings in October 1942? And there were still Vichy troops there, even after the Second Battle of El Alamein?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:22 am
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, the Nobel peace prize. What a joke that was. He received it for working on the Oslo peace accord which Arafat later used to wipe his butt. He was real deserving of that honor... Rolling Eyes


kind of like bush and the american constitution.

except bush then, after wiping, throws it on the ground and does a mexican hat dance on the document.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:27 am
McGentrix wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
McG was illustrating my point when he wrote:
They should stop being such obvious targets.


Or you could stop being so eager to villify them.


You may agree that it's ok to remember and revere a terrorist as a national hero


i'm sure that the brits of 1777 said the same about george washington.

on arafat. bush spoke, "god bless his soul".

next...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:29 am
Baldimo wrote:
If this so then how come french tourism has suffered in the last several years?


bill o'reilly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:10 am
gungasnake wrote:
When American troops were about to land in Morocco in 43, we told the French to aim their searchlights skyward as a sign of agreement and friendship. The Vichy French did that, AND THEN began shelling the American forces, so that all French ships in the harbor had to be destroyed.


I still couldn't find an answer to my previous question, but this is interesting as well:

On November 16, 1776, Sint Eustatius became the first foreign government officially to recognize the fledgling United States, firing a salute to the brig Andrea Doria, which was flying the new Stars and Stripes flag. Britain could not ignore the situation; seizing on the opportunity presented by an impending American-Dutch commercial treaty, Admiral George Rodney was ordered to capture the island and did so in February 1781. After sacking storehouses and homes, the British continued to fly the Dutch flag, luring many American and other enemy ships to their capture.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:31 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:


There was the "Quasi-War" against France 1798-1800:


What was this 1805 war about?


Nothing. I had the dates wrong as you undoubtedly knew.

It is hard indeed to put one over on Walter !
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:37 am
No, I didn't know that. (And I honestly didn't think of that "Quasi-War" as a war at all. [It's really called "quasi"!]


Nevertheless, since in a couple of hours 'Punish France' will become the official US foreign policy ... :wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 09:05 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Twelve years later, at the height of the Cold War, the French withdrew from the NATO military alliance and summarily kicked all NATO. forces out of France.


That's not true:

In 1965, President Charles de Gaulle of France announced that France would withdraw from the integrated military structure of NATO. The decision was made official in March 1966 and meant that, while France was part of the decision making, French forces would not be under the operational control of NATO commanders. France also announced that it would pursue its own nuclear deterrent against any possible aggression.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 09:38 am
Hmmh, you are correct here.

I didn't realise the equivalence of those two terms.

And that wasn't a NATO exercise either, I wrote about (I knew that).

And you are (nearly) right about the number of involved US-ships: two LST's, a Tender, and might well be destroyer(s) and/or frigate(s) as well.
Plus some Marines, who were ashore with the defending troops.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 10:57 am
More sour grapes from Chirac
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:06 am


Times and the Independent were both granted an audience with Jacques Chirac in Paris yesterday. To the Independent, the French president was at his most charming. But the Times and the Sun report that he delivered a "sneering" verdict on Tony Blair's attempts to reconcile the US and the EU.

"Tony Blair and I have never quarrelled over Iraq," the Independent reports Mr Chirac as saying. "We have quarrelled only once, and that was about agriculture." They were "both tired" at the end of a long EU summit, he explained. "It was soon forgotten."

"I walk in to [No 10]. I ask 'How is Leo?' The estimable Leo is sent for and he is shown to me. He says 'Bonjour M. Le President' and 'Bonjour, M. Chirac'."

"In French?"

"Yes, in French. Then we sit down and have an excellent meal."

Can this be the same man who, the Sun says on page two, "sneered" at Mr Blair's attempt in a speech last night to "rebuild bridges" between the US and the EU? It may be that the Sun intends to resurrect its "Chirac est un ver" campaign for the president's visit to Britain later this week.

Mr Chirac told the Times that Britain appeared to have gained nothing from its support for George Bush. "I'm not sure if it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically," he said.


Ignore the intellectuals - Blair and I get on fine, insists Chirac


Btw: Chirac is on visit in London, one of the major events marking the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, the 1904 diplomatic deal that ended Anglo-French imperial rivalry and heralded an era of warmer ties between London and Paris.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:18 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Times and the Independent were both granted an audience with Jacques Chirac in Paris yesterday. To the Independent, the French president was at his most charming. But the Times and the Sun report that he delivered a "sneering" verdict on Tony Blair's attempts to reconcile the US and the EU.


Probably because the Times is conservative and The Independent liberal.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:21 am
Thanks for the link, Walter. Always good to get different perspectives on a story.

Did you see this paragraph?

Quote:
Otherwise, he said, France planned to continue to argue its own case on the Iraqi conflict, without responding to the "insults" from the Anglo-Saxon world. "We had our own analysis of what the problem was and how to respond to it. Tony Blair respected that. Elsewhere we were bombarded with insults, but we did not respond and we will not respond. There was no whisky poured down the gutters in Paris."


Maybe pouring whisky down the gutters in Paris isn't the absolute worst thing that could happen? And, slogans like "Yankees must die"?

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2003150352,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 11:07:06