France Could Not Possibly Have Done This

Annie · #1 (**permalink**) 01-05-2007, 07:12 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...486864,00.html

Conclusion:

Quote:

...Since 1994 France has been adept at trying to hide this stain on la gloire. Its ministers, including the current Prime Minister, constantly repeat the “double genocide” myth, which alleged that while Hutu killed Tutsi, the Tutsi also killed Hutu. It is akin to claiming that Holocaust victims were also mass murderers.

So the latest French government attempt to cover its Rwandan shame is no surprise to observers of La Françafrique. The timing behind the sudden release of Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière’s report, which blames Kagame for Habyarimana’s death, is no coincidence. Four senior French military and political figures will shortly give testimony before the international war crimes tribunal in Arusha. They have been called by the defence team of Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, who faces charges of being the mastermind behind the genocide.

It is deeply embarrassing, like being called to defend Nazis at Nuremberg. Shortly, too, Kagame’s government of reconciliation, which drove the genocidaire out in 1994, will announce the findings of its own inquiry into the French involvement in the genocide. It promises to uncover even more explicit details of Mitterrand’s crime.

President Kagame arrived in London on Sunday for a five-day visit to the UK. His 12-year-old Government has revived a country torn apart by genocide, corruption and poverty. He has emphasised there is no “Hutu” or “Tutsi” in his country now, only Rwandans. But while he has created a stable economy and new sense of pride, it is vital that the world, which looked the other way in 1994, now demands answers from France about its direct complicity in the genocide.

There seems to be an unwritten rule among Western leaders not to question each other’s foreign policies too closely. But genocide cannot be allowed to be so cynically forgotten. Tony Blair has a duty to ask some deeply troubling questions about how and why the Élysée supported a genocidal government before, during and after one of the most appalling episodes of killing the world has ever seen. He may put at risk having some of his own skeletons unearthed. But the dead and the traumatised survivors in Rwanda deserve such belated recognition — and respect.

Una · #2 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 04:18 AM

I dont know, it is possible, France do claim to this date that they were the only ones who were speaking to both sides during the genocide attempt. But I wouldnt put it past a government to prop up another government to further its self interests.

trobinett · #3 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 04:30 PM

Posted by Kathianne:

Quote:

There seems to be an unwritten rule among Western leaders not to question each other’s foreign policies too closely. But genocide cannot be allowed to be so cynically forgotten. Tony Blair has a duty to ask some deeply troubling questions about how and why the Élysée supported a genocidal government before, during and after one of the most appalling episodes of killing the world has ever seen. He may put at risk having some of his own skeletons unearthed. But the dead and the traumatised survivors in Rwanda deserve such belated recognition — and respect.

Hmmm, maybe we, with the help of the English of course, should "buy" some land in the middle east somewhere, and give it to, oh, I don't know, we'll work that part out later, and they can call it their own.

With the help of boat loads of money, and the protection of the worlds Super Powers, I'm sure we can make some more enemies, that can last into the next millennium.

Or maybe, we should just MOOB , I don't know.

Annie · #4 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trobinett

Posted by Kathianne:

Hmmm, maybe we, with the help of the English of course, should "buy" some land in the middle east somewhere, and give it to, oh, I don't know, we'll work that part out later, and they can call it their own.

With the help of boat loads of money, and the protection of the worlds Super Powers, I'm sure we can make some more enemies, that can last into the next millennium.

Or maybe, we should just MOOB , I don't know.

When I read what I wrote I can see where some might get the idea that I meant France 'would never' do that. Hardly, I never underestimate the French ability to backstab any ally. It's not 'personal' you know.

trobinett · #5 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathianne

When I read what I wrote I can see where some might get the idea that I meant France 'would never' do that. Hardly, I never underestimate the French ability to backstab any ally. It's not 'personal' you know.

I just watched a "special" on the French Foreign Legion. One would do well, to ALWAYS be on the OTHER side from France. They've lost more wars, than I knew there had been. The Foreign Legion not withstanding.

manu1959 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-06-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trobinett

I just watched a "special" on the French Foreign Legion. One would do well, to ALWAYS be on the OTHER side from France. They've lost more wars, than I knew there had been. The Foreign Legion not withstanding.

France's wartime history....

* Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

* Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are
victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

* Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever
lose two wars when fighting Italians.

* Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

* Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.

* War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.

* The Dutch War - Tied

* War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War Lost,
but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the
world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

* War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their
first taste of a Marlboro , which they have loved ever since.

* American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far
more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the
Second Rule of French Warfare; " France only wins when America does most of
the fighting."

* French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was
also French.

* The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First
Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a
British footwear designer.

* The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk
Frat boy to France 's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

* World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the
United States . Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not
only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly,
widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in
the French bloodline.

* World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and
Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

* War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with
the Dien Bien Flu

* Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army
by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule
of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical
to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch,
Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

* War on Terrorism - France , keeping in mind its recent history,
surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to
Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

Thus, the question for any country silly enough to count on the French
should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until
France collapses?"

padisha emperor · #7 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 07:31 AM

Hey ! Far from thid board for a couple of monthes because exams, and when I come back, always this old joke ? Guys, i'm sure you can do better things ,better jokes

I have several times answer to this joke, so i won't do it again.

About the French Foreign Legion, I hope you've seen Cameron, Tuyen Quang, and the other famous battles where this elite corps show its strength. hope also you've heard that the US Navy Seals have a training copied on the Legion training.

For Rwanda, France can be blamed, maybe. But the whole international community can be blamed too. Everybody refused to send a multinational force to Rwanda. The Turquoise operation, with french forces, came to late. The MINUAR, the UN blue helmet force, wasn't able to do anything, and the soldiers of the MINUAR, particularly the canadian, got nightmares because of this weakness (they haden't a mandate e nough strong to do something).

Said1 · #8 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padisha emperor

Hey ! Far from thid board for a couple of monthes because exams, and when I come back, always this old joke ? Guys, i'm sure you can do better things ,better jokes

I have several times answer to this joke, so i won't do it again.

About the French Foreign Legion, I hope you've seen Cameron, Tuyen Quang, and the other famous battles where this elite corps show its strength. hope also you've heard that the US Navy Seals have a training copied on the Legion training.

For Rwanda, France can be blamed, maybe. But the whole international community can be blamed too. Everybody refused to send a multinational force to Rwanda. The Turquoise operation, with french forces, came to late. The MINUAR, the UN blue helmet force, wasn't able to do anything, and the soldiers of the MINUAR, particularly the canadian, got nightmares because of this weakness (they haden't a mandate e nough strong to do something).

I'd hope they did good, considering they weren't acutal Frenchmen, but a mish-mash of FOREIGNERS, including, but not limited to runaway Nazis. Tres bein.

padisha emperor · #9 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Said1

I'd hope they did good, considering they weren't acutal Frenchmen, but a mish-mash of FOREIGNERS, including, but not limited to runaway Nazis. Tres bein.

French Foreign Legion has ex-Nazis in its troops after the WWII, yes. They were sent in indochina to fight communists. But the Legion is more than 170 years old, so, not only Nazis, dear Said1

.

And more than half of the men of the Legion are in fact French, all the officers, or not far, are French men.

Said1 · #10 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padisha emperor

French Foreign Legion has ex-Nazis in its troops after the WWII, yes. They were sent in indochina to fight communists. But the Legion is more than 170 years old, so, not only Nazis, dear Said1

.

And more than half of the men of the Legion are in fact French, all the officers, or not far, are French men.

Oh, yes. that's right, France lost all her colonies.

I love bugging you. And no, I have nothing better to do, maintenant.

roomy · #11 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 03:31 AM

Of course you Americans know that you owe your independance in large part to France.

sitarro · #12 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roomy

Of course you Americans know that you owe your independance in large part to France.

Of course, we would have never done it without the French who were of course acting on their own behalf, enemy of your enemy makes great friends.

padisha emperor · #13 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitarro

Of course, we would have never done it without the French who were of course acting on their own behalf, enemy of your enemy makes great friends.

Yes, and ? Intention didn't count, result is here : France helped you and beat English in Yorktown, Cheasapeak...
France went to America to kick red coats, to took back its colonies, but also to help the Americans. Don't forget that at this time, the "Lumières", the Lights spirit, is in France. Condorcet, Voltaire, Diderot, d'Alembert, Rousseau.... The ideas of liberty, of natural rights.... This counts for the final intervention of France.

It's really ungratefull to say "French didn't help us to help us, but to kick England". This is not the whole truth. It's only a part of it.

USA didn't land in normandy to save France, they did it to defeat Nazi Germany. But I am, despite this intention, very very gratefull to USA.

Don't forget that France had for a long time interests in USA : Lousiana, the French Lousiana, third of the actual US continental territory, and the fights in the 13 colonies.

Don't say "they did it not for us", but accept this help, and thank us, like we, French, accept your help for 1944 and thank you. Even if the US-France relations are quite cold, French people knows what US did for us. So, I'll hope US people doesn't forget what France did for them too.

red states rule · #14 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 08:33 AM

Why is the U.S. Navy building a fleet of glass bottom boats? So they can steer around the French Navy.

padisha emperor · #15 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red states rule

Why is the U.S. Navy building a fleet of glass bottom boats? So they can steer around the French Navy.

Do we speak of the same French Navy ? Trafalgar gave a bad idea of the French navy, even for the French. But this is not the real french navy. Do you speak of the one who beats several times England and Netherlands at seas, during the XVIIth and XVIIIth c. ? the one who was at this time the 2nd best navy of the world, until 1910 ? The one who gave to English Navy a lesson of navigation and naval fight in Barfleur, in 1692 ? the one who save USA in Cheasapeake fight, lead by de Grasse, the real builder of the US independance, according to ENGLISH historians (not only french....) ? Or the french navy who scuttled itself in Toulon, in november 1942, prefering death than dishonnor, prefering sunk than beeing cought by Germans, and for this, the NY Times titled "Glory at Toulon !" ??? The french navy, actually bigger than the UK'n one ?

If you speak of this french navy, then, ok.