A history of French Military Victories

[NightTrain]

So the French still aren't on board with us spanking Iraq. Oh boo hoo. Let's take a look at the mighty French military prowess, shall we?


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 Marlborough, which they have loved every 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.

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 surrenders?"

 

[Frog in Rome]

Obviously 'GOD' does not know that piece of wit has been posted in another place, by Himself!

No prob!

1775-1783: The British crown presents a bill to American settlers who must now pay for their protection. Ungrateful settlers who are
already allergic to taxes go on a rampage and attack tea boxes on a ship; several Americans are wounded in explosions.
Americans win their sole victory in Saratoga when general Burgoyne realizes that Canadian merchants sold him ragweed instead of tea before his departure. Facing a mutiny he decides to surrender.
In the following years Americans will lose most of ther battles due to their lack of discipline and massive desertions. In 1781, 30,000 French soldiers & sailors accept to integrate 11,000 American mascots who
will play music from afar while the French win the Battle of Yorktown.
1812: The American army is crushed trying to invade Canada and abandons annexation plans.
During the 19 the century, several raids are led against Indian women and babies with the US troops achieving some victories, but fail in their effort to ethnically cleanse the Indians. Nevertheless, some sucessful slaughters will lead them to believe that they are mighty and couragous warriors.
1861-1865: Americans win an impressive victory against themselves but it took a while. The Civil War as it comes to be called, will turn out to be the only war Americans ever win. Mind you they beat themselves, but why digress.
1898: The Spanish succeed a master coup and get rid of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines at the expense of the Americans,
leaving them the impression that they won the war. Soon the US discovers that there is no oil there, and that their new possessions are
a wastebasket, more than anything else.
1900-1950: A series of military interventions against banana republics in South America and the Caribbean against people armed with slingshots and spears has a beneficial effect on the American ego.
1918: The Americans arrive just on time to see the victory of the French and the British against the Germans. They then turn around, and try to claim the high ground by sabotaging the peace treaty and stabbing France in the back when it tries to enforce reparations and prevent Germany from rearming, thus setting the stage for WWII.
1941-1945: While as many as 20 million Russians die bleeding the Wermacht to death, the US wait until the Germans are left with the Hitler Youth, a childrens' force comprised of 14 year old soldiers to launch their assault. They are still saying today that they suffered heavy loses at their hands. In the whole Normandy Campaign they suffer less casualties than the French did in the first six months of 1940, and inflict less damage on the Germans, yet this is enough for them to claim they liberated Europe. That claim alone is the biggest piece of historical myth in history.
1950-1953: The US fails to beat North Korea, in 1953 the borders are still roughly what they were three years earlier.
1963-1973: Americans suffer cruelly from the lack of AC and marijuana of a poor quality in Vietnam. When they realize that their soldiers
can be killed in a war they retreat.
1983: The combined aviation, navy and ground troops apply an audacious plan and succeed to beat a bunch of cuban workers armed with shovels in Granada. The celebrations go on for weeks with parades and chants of USA, USA.
1991: Americans align more soldiers than the French or the British combined and succeed in crushing an army of barefoot shiite drafted against their will who are armed with empty rifles and have barely had a thing to eat in months. But even this so-called victory is hollow as it is actually led by the Daguet division from France which leads the charge while American soldiers console themselves by rounding up prisoners that TV crews did not want.

2003: Iraq. Need I go on? I think not.

 

[5stringJeff]

Well, why not settle it once and for all? France vs. the US, at a time and place of France's choosing. Hell, we'll even let you launch a surprise invasion... at which point you will see what the right to bear arms will do to an invading army.

We landed on France's beaches once, we could certainly do it again!

 

[NightTrain]

I had to read that a couple of times... WOW! You have a talent for writing comedy, have you ever sent in work to a sitcom? I see you're working for the U.N. in Rome, pretty nice gig!

Now, I just have to ask this... where did you get your historical facts, my bitter little friend?

Your entire post is bullshit; I just want to verify that you're not joking before I tear it apart for you and make you eat it.

 

[eric]

Hey NT,


Is this guy for real ? Please tell me this post was a joke !

 

[eric]

And let me throw in that his facts about the invasion of Germany he must have transposed from some nutty french feel good book. Was he there ? My parents were!

 

[NightTrain]

LOL

I just don't know, Eric! I was laughing my ass off the first time I read it!! Hilarious!

 

[Frog in Rome]

The purpose of this post, which came in response to an equally idiotic one by Jimny C about French military history, was to show that when you start being dumb and abusive, we French can easily match you.

Working for the UN? what made you even think that? Oh yes of course, the UN=French=scumbags, how silly of me to forget.

Thank you Jimny C for your offer to sling it out army to army, how old are you? win any pissing contests lately? As for first-hand observation of the fate of invaders in a country where everybody and his aunt carry, no need to stage it in Vermont - Iraq does nicely.

I'll admit to a big mistake - thinking that a message board with 'Where your Voice Counts' as its motto meant anything but a mud-slinging contest. I'll let you guys mutually greasing your shafts and wondering at your supreme wit. Back on the Yahoo MBs where I can bash it out with French bashers with brains and valid points.

 

[jimnyc]

The purpose of this post, which came in response to an equally idiotic one by Jimny C about French military history, was to show that when you start being dumb and abusive, we French can easily match you.

Why did you move the "c" away from the rest of my name and capitalize it as if it was part of my last name? Is it just the french and canadians that are this dense?

The US can be abusive toward the french because the french are a bunch of fucking pussies and can't do anything about it. And no, you cannot match us, you are far too stupid.

Working for the UN? what made you even think that? Oh yes of course, the UN=French=scumbags, how silly of me to forget.

Maybe because your IP address is registered to Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. I'm sure next you'll tell us you are just hacking through their systems to post here. Blah, blah, blah! You fit the role of the french for sure, lying cowardly scumbags!

Thank you Jimny C for your offer to sling it out army to army, how old are you? win any pissing contests lately? As for first-hand observation of the fate of invaders in a country where everybody and his aunt carry, no need to stage it in Vermont - Iraq does nicely.

This is my first post in this thread, dumbass! reread before commenting next time!

I'll admit to a big mistake - thinking that a message board with 'Where your Voice Counts' as its motto meant anything but a mud-slinging contest. I'll let you guys mutually greasing your shafts and wondering at your supreme wit. Back on the Yahoo MBs where I can bash it out with French bashers with brains and valid points.

Yes, go back to the boards where you need only be 12 years old and have AOL access to throw inane jabs at one another. Didn't you say this yesterday too? You came back though, didn't you? LOL

If WE have no brains, and YOU have all the valid points, please answer the following for me. Prove point by point how the list of french wars above is incorrect, followed by how your list of US wars IS correct. Feel free to leave out rhetoric and utilize strictly facts. Well, I'm waiting, lets see the scorecard!

 

[eric]

Hey tadpole,

Have you ever considered that maybe we take it a little personal when the French stab us in the back? We have no problem with dissent, or nations voicing their opinions, even if different from ours. It is an entirely different scenario when France actively tries to sabotage our efforts to build a coalition, and we feel our security is at risk.

Many Americans lost loved ones in WWII on your shores, can you not see where animosity could be felt. And if you are as intellectual as you profess, then why even lower yourself, as you have. Why not show your intelligence by telling us why we should not harbor these feelings.

As far as yahoo MB, if you enjoyed the chaos and ramblings of a bunch of unemployed, unrealistic, liberal losers, and 10-year-old children, please go, you have our blessing
.

 

[Frog in Rome]

"Why not show your intelligence by telling us why we should not harbor these feelings"

Eric, I am not interested in showing my intelligence. However, since you give me the opportunity to say why, IMHO, current US hostility to France is not justified, let me try.

You say (and many would seem to think the same) that we back stabbed you, failed you in time of need, and even put your soldiers at risk.

If that was true, your resentment would be more than justified; effective sanctions would be in order. Ever wonder why Rumsfeld and Co never went further than vocal abuse?

The core question is, were you in need? Many Americans would say, 'we were under attack, you had to help us'. Well we did. After 9/11 there was NO QUESTION that you were under attack and that an organization (al Qaeda) and a nation-state (Afghanistan) were directly involved. We did not hesitate to send troops and a carrier to Afghanistan. We still are there. As for police and justice cooperation re terrorism, it had started way before 9/11 and is still going on smoothly.

We never shirk from a good fight. We also were with you on Gulf 1. Of course it is fashionably witty to say the Frogs were there to clean the toilets, but let's stay serious for a while.

However you WERE NOT under attack from Iraq. Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Iraq involvement in 9/11? Deployable WMDs warranting immediate response? ALL the 'reasons' which were given at the start of the war to justify launching it without waiting for the inspection process to end (a matter of months, as requested by UN inspectors) are now proved empty. Remember two things: OUR intelligence was very clear on the above - yours too probably, but that is another issue. And we NEVER said we were against war - just that we should wait for the inspections to proceed (a deadline was provided).

So in OUR view you were not under attack from Iraq. You, or anybody else, were NOT under threat justifying a preemptive strike. Liberation of the Iraqi people is a good thing, but it was NOT given as a war objective at the start, and we, like most of the world, have our reservations on imposing a political process with armed force - it never works, you know.

France stands on its two legs. Its army is on a par with Britain's, its training and equipment well respected by military experts, and it sees its share of action worldwide. So I must say the downpour of abuse on the general theme of 'surrender monkeys' struck us as silly, rather than insulting.

You have been told that France's real motives were its oil contracts. Well consider this. We knew that the US would go to war anyway, and that our stand would surely lose us those contracts. Yet we did it. Sounds like greed to you?

We can be greedy, but on that one, the whole nation thought it was doing (a) the right thing, period; and (b) the friendly thing to the US, by warning them against an useless, unwarranted, illegal, costly and murderous move. Yes - WE WERE, ON THIS, THE US' TRUEST ALLIES AND FRIENDS, AS OPPOSED TO BEING ITS TOADIES.

I still think that, and the facts, as they unfold, seem to concur. I rest my case. Should you choose to answer (and I would like nothing more), I will try and disregard any colourful language.

In a way I can understand you. Back in the fifties when France and the UK started a jolly little war with Egypt on the issue of the Canal, the US and UN stopped us in our tracks. We were aghast and furious. Now, fifty years later, I agree you were in the right.

Let's hope it does not take as long this time.

 

[eric]

First let me state that I never said the french were cowards. That was said in other posts. My real problem was not that France disagreed with us, but their active blocking of our efforts in the UN. Why did France not say, "We do not agree and will not participate" and leave it at that?

Why go on a crusade to convince other nations not to join us?

As you yourself said, its not that you disagree with what Iraq was doing, but the time frame. It is not like France felt Iraq was innocent and the US was picking on them. So why the be so proactive in your UN efforts ?

This is what bothers Americans most.

 

[NightTrain]

Actually, there were connections between Al Qaeda & Saddam.

Remember the little incident when Czech intelligence observed a meeting between Mohammed Atta (one of the 9/11 pilots, btw) and an Iraqi 'diplomat'? The 'diplomat' was expelled from the country immediately. Let me guess - your media didn't cover that little episode, eh?

How about the terrorists that Saddam was harboring in Iraq?

Or the money he was paying to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

No links to terrorism? Please!

What infuriated America was your insolent attitude with blocking a UN resolution to go in to disarm Iraq. The U.S. was in the process of writing up a proposed resolution to take down Saddam, and Chirac & crew made an announcement that they would veto it without even seeing it - it wasn't even written yet! How the HELL can you reject something out of hand without even considering it on that level?

And the desecration of a memorial honoring British soldiers killed liberating your country in WWII was a nice touch, too. It really showed the world what your position was.

 

[Spirit_Soul]

France is just jealous and it basically wants to keep their arms trade going with Islamic countries.

It just thinks that it is some big shot who can boss everyone around, but truly that title belongs to us

 

[eric]

Hey spirit,

There is hope for you yet ! Only kidding ! You are right about the arms trade. In fact, evidence seems to suggest that french weapons made their way to Iraq during the embargo. Makes you wonder !

 

[vyxen]

Why is it not acceptable for France to have reservations about the invasion? America invading Iraq threatens French interests in that region. America would be in a huff too if Europe decided to invade a nation where America had substantial interests.

The bottom line is that every nation looks out for their own interests first. America is definitely not immune from this rule of thumb.

Speaking of which, if America is so powerful and mighty, why does it matter what nation supports or is against your war? I'm sure the USA can handle its own wars.

 

[eric]

French interests, you mean illegal arms sales, nuclear technology, biochem equipment? I hope these are not the interests you are talking about?

Again, there is no problem with voicing discourse, but actively blocking our UN efforts is another story. And yes all countries look out for themselves, but least not forget if it were not for America the french would be speaking German, rest assured.

America is no saint, but never in the history of this world has one country gained so much power, so quickly, and used it so wisely.

As far as being able to fight our own wars, don't make me laugh !

 

[NightTrain]

Why is it not acceptable for France to have reservations about the invasion?

Because their 'reservations' were based purely on what was financially prudent for France. How about that Nuclear project that Israel bombed that was being constructed in the early '80s for Iraq by the French? They could care less who they arm - as long as they get their money. Can you imagine what would have happened in the last 20 years had Israel not stepped up to the plate and eliminated that project?

Being a world power requires that you behave accordingly. They haven't demonstrated that they have the common sense to be in the position they're in.

Another distressing fact is that France obviously hasn't learned a damn thing when it comes to appeasement. You'd have thought the French, of ALL PEOPLE, would know better. You can't reason with a bloodthirsty madman, they tried that back in the '30s. They (and Britain, to be fair) allowed a minor lunatic to grow into a world class menace.


Yes, America can indeed fight and win it's own wars. That was never a question; did you miss out on the fireworks lately? As far as I'm concerned, this war had another nice side affect - some of our so-called 'allies' were exposed as the ankle-biters they truly are.

We now know who we can count on when push comes to shove. Knowledge is power.

 

[NB Forrest]

Recently the EU suspended firework displays in Europe. They fear if the French army sees them they will surrender

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NB Forrest
Recently the EU suspended firework displays in Europe. They fear if the French army sees them they will surrender