Hmmh, BIC was founded in 1945 by Marcel Bich, who 'baptised' his product shortening his name.
A frenchman comes home with two friends to find his wife on the floor with her skirt hiked up and blood on her legs.
"Zis looks like ze menstrual blood" says one frenchman.
Another puts his head between her legs and says "Zis smells like ze menstrual blood"!
Yet another puts his head down there and exclaims "Zis tastes like ze menstrual blood!! Mon Dieu, zis IS ze menstrual blood!!"
"Thank God we did not f##k her"!!!!
This more than anything illustrates the French to me.
Yeah Walter, it is just an interesting coincidence really....
Something else has occurred to me about the French and the Americans:
In 1859, the Liberal Army in Mexico finally won "The War of the Reform," by defeating the last viable military force which the Conservatives were able to field. Conservatives had been in Europe for a generation as desultory civil wars raged in Mexico, withe the Liberals increasing on the winning end. They were searching for a monarch for Mexico. They finally secured the services of the Austrian Archduke Maximilian, and the approval of his brother, the Austrian Emperor. Maximilian's wife was Belgian, the daughter of King Leopold (if you really want to sicken yourself, read about Leopold and the Belgian Congo), and her cousin had married Louis Bonaparte, the self-styled Napoleon III. The French in those days considered themselves the greatest army in the world, and just about everyone agreed (except perhaps, the Armies of Northern Virginia and of the Potomac, but they were somewhat distracted at the time). So, in 1862, a Franco-Belgian army was assembled, and, in due course, landed in Vera Cruz. Vera Cruz has always been liberal, and had been the scene of the definitive battle which ended the war of the reform-not a good place for a French garrison. Additionally, the "fever season" was approaching; the vomito was justly feared by all invaders, and had motivated Cortez and Winfield Scott to move inland-it had the same effect on the Franco-Belgian army. They moved up the National Road, and, reaching Puebla, prepared to brush aside the Liberal Army, and move onto Mexico itself (meaning the city, Ciudad Mexico). The Mexican Conservatives with them warned them that although Puebla was a Conservative city, and the locals would likely aid them in an assault against the defenses, the people of the countryside were Liberal, and the northern side of the city was the most strongly defended. They advised that the French screen the Liberal Army, and slide to the east, and the south, upon which side they assured the French that the city was indefensible. This, or course, would not do for the world's greatest army.
The French infantry lined up, the skirmishers were sent out, the sections of artillery were brought up to the intervals between the battalions. The Mexicans in the outworks of "The Black Fort" to the north of Puebla began to play on the French line with the artillery (remember, these were veterans of a generation of desultory war with the Conservatives), while clouds of Mexican skirmishers moved through the scrub brush and began to take a heavy toll of French NCO's and company-grade officers. The French decided to clear the Mexican "gad-flies" from their front, and began to move obliquely against the former line of their advance-making the effect of the Mexican artillery fire greater. They were on a ridge which was, in effect, and extended plateau, and before them was a deep swale which they could not see-and they ignored the advice of the Conservatives with them, who had tried to warn them about the terrain. The Mexican skirmishers quickly fell back, and, more confident and contemptuous than before, the French slowly and carefully dressed their lines, while under continual fire, for the final advance. They were certain that the long solid lines of blue-coated, read pantalooned infantry, with their gleaming bayonets would drive the Mexicans with as much ease as they had the Russians in 1855, and the Austrians in 1859. In the midst of the complicated maneuvers necessary for such a line to change front, Porfiro Diaz irruped into their lines. (Diaz would one day be "President for Life," 1878-1913: "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.") Leading waves of poorly disciplined, but fearless and enthusiastic lancers, they slammed into the flank of the French, as Mexican field artillery suddenly appeared with the skirmishers on the far slope of the swale, and the slaughter was horrible. Despite the great professionalism of the French, they were driven back with fearful loss.
Over the next several weeks, stubborn as usual (and as stubborn as any American army), the French punched a path through to the west, and began to pass the Franco-Belgian army onto the road to Mexico. Diaz and other commanders lead cavalry raids against the French supply trains, and the French artillery suffered much in a "siege by regular approaches" against the Liberal fortifications to the north of Puebla. Nasty firefights broke out every day at sunset and at dawn as the French and Belgians slowly slugged their way into the city. Shades of An-Nasiriyah.
Diaz lead his famous charge on May 5, 1862. Benito Juarez proclaimed "Cinco de Mayo" a national holiday, which is celebrated to this day. To the list of striking American and French similarities-i would add military hubris.
<heeeey setanta! It's good to see you back on the board!>
Yeap, I really missed such responses!
Mapleleaf wrote:-
Quote:This is what I have heard about France:
*The people are stubborn.
*Frenchman do not like to speak English.
*They are lovers.
*Cream sauces and food are important.
*They had active rebel groups during the world wars.
*They prefer to lead whether than be a part of a group of countries.
*Their President lead the opposition against the Iraqi invasion.
I am hoping you will provide stories and prose to prove me right, wrong or to expand my knowledge of Frenchman.
Yes the people are stubborn aren't we all ?
Do you like to speak French ? I find that with most countries I visit if I make the effort to speak their language they can not be nicer. I am lucky in that I find it relatively easy to pick up foreign languages, some are not so lucky and find it difficult. You get out what you put in, n'est ce-pas ?
Food VERY important- long languid lunch hours-and steak BLEU ( very rare)
Some brave resistance fighters in the maquis- generally however not the backbone of us Brits I'm afraid
Their presidents are all ego maniacs and arrogant-ring a bell ?
Chirac was vociferous in his condemnation of the Iraq War-although he was happy to shake the hand of the mass murderer Mogabe of Zimbabwe-both instances are examples of commercial expediency over any moral or ethical considerations , in my opinion.
All these answers are of course totally biased as I am a Brit and they invaded us in 1066 and we have never forgiven them for it !
Were't the Brits invaded by every damn body at one time or another?
Hiama what a dreadful thing to say, "Not the backbone of us Brits I'm afraid".
Don't you recognise that attitude, attributed to and applied to
others, is the cause of much off the trouble we're in at the moment?
We demonise or denigrate other races, and praise our own fine qualities, and it's all just so much puffery.
Hiama! You're back! We've missed you...
BTW, I agree with you...I have friends in France who have promised me they will not assume Bush is representative of America if I will return the favor re: Chirac... :wink:
Heh heh....French military hubris has a similar, but much longer tradition than that of the Americans. The Battle of Agincourt comes to mind....
Good point, Boss -- although, of course, we've been in the democratic republican arrogance game a little longer than they have, so i suppose it all equals out . . .
But they had a real emperor, not only an empire!
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Were't the Brits invaded by every damn body at one time or another?
Oh no . . . of course not . . . unless, of course, you count the troops Maud the Empress imported in the mid-12th century in her civil war with Stephen of Blois; or the French army the rebellious barons brought in during the war with King John in the early 13th century; or the Welsh under Llewellyn the Great who sided with the de Monforts when they made a prisoner of Henry III in the mid-13th century; or the Scots under William Wallace; or Henry, Earl of Richmond, near the end of the 15th century in the Wars of the Roses; or the Germans who landed with the Yorkist pretender two years later; or the Scots in 1649 and 1651; or Monmouth's invasion in 1685. No, you obviously have not studied English history as it is truly taught in England--no one has invaded England since 1066. If you don't believe me, just pick up any English grammar school history text . . .
And all through that time, England spread the love....just ask the Irish...
oooooo . . . very wicked . . . very wicked indeed . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
okbye
You heard the one about the kind, benevolent government and the educated populace who refused to be manipulated by fear?
Me neither.
mac11 wrote:Mapleleaf, can we assume that you need no help in understanding French women?
Good point, let's hope he speaks French, and will at least have the decency to chat them up before . . . well, you know . . .
