I want a parade.

[archangel]

I never said anything about being PC...so throw that in the garbage. It's about the principle. In my opinion, too many soldiers have died in vain while fighting for a cause that was distorted and unnecessary. I don't see any reason to throw a parade to honor that.

You are that smelly flower child who spit on me as I exited the front gate of Ft.Ord,California July, 1968...I exited my vehicle and gave you your just reward a quick right to your other cheek...then your flower children surrounded me with a parade as the MP's surrounded y'all...a very nice parade to remember....

 

[Gunny]

A PARADE?

For what? What have we won?

The only parade that I'd attend is the one for the troops that fought in Afghanistan.

To gloat over a "victory" in Iraq when soldiers are still dying because of the attacks of insurgents, when no WMD have been found, and when we kind of fucked up the exit strategy is NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

Not to mention, we're still fighting that war on terrorism, wherever it is.

Quite dishonest of you to attempt to hinge the invasion of Iraq solely on WMDs. It's proven fact Saddam posessed and used WMDs. Posession and intent (a proven willingness to use WMDs) is enough to convict you in a court of law in this Nation.

Guess we needed to meet a higher standard than our own law for you libs, huh?

 

[padisha emperor]

CSM, i have humor, but understand that when it's the 121654544676464767667676576765767 th time, it's quite boring, isn't it ?

Monte Cassino : the french free forces (the "Tabors Marocains") did an awesome job. Without them, the Mount would probably not fall "so quickly". But it didn't erase the valor and courage of the brave polish corps.
But it wxas the French Expeditionnary Corps lead by the Général Juin who broke the locked area who allowed the liberation of Rome.

For Rome, I really believe that the French were the first unit to enter into the city.

Berchtesgaden :
"On May 4, the Third Infantry Division reached the resort town of Berchtesgaden and from there took a narrow, twisting road a few miles up to Obersalzberg, some 1,200 feet above. It found the French Second Armored, the first of the Free French troops to have entered Paris in 1944, already there. Nobody much cared who was first. "

then, it seems that nobody know really who was first.
here : map of the 2nd Armored Division's progression in Bavaria.

for my "compliments", I'm sorry, accept my apologizes, but when I come here and read always that France, French, and France's history suck...quite boring, irritating, and all the bad feelings you want.


For the US in WWI : I never thought that, look back my post : just after I said that you 'ld disagree xith the statement, exactly the kind of statement you - not specially you, you in general, for plural - made about France.
Just to show you how it's boring, and your reaction prooves that I was right, it's boring.

 

[padisha emperor]

Quite dishonest of you to attempt to hinge the invasion of Iraq solely on WMDs. It's proven fact Saddam posessed and used WMDs. Posession and intent (a proven willingness to use WMDs) is enough to convict you in a court of law in this Nation.

Guess we needed to meet a higher standard than our own law for you libs, huh?

First, you're not in "this Nation", but in the international law order, submit to the UN Charta and the International Treaties.
And so amazing it seems, the laws are quite different in the international order than in the USA's order, or the France's law order....
The US laws are not all-over-the world effective. Their juridiction, their territorial domain are the US soil. Not Iraq.
With the Iraq war, USA and UK are in violation of the UN Charta about the resort to force. And also in violation of the JUS COGENS law about the prohibition of the resort to force (the JUS COGENS laws are the strongest of the international laws, a treaty in violation with one of them is canceled, article 53 and 64 of the Convention of Vienna, 23rd May, 1969). The prohibition of the resort to force is in the same rank, the same level, than the prohibition of torture, or slavery.

Saddam had and used WMD ? but had he such WMD and did he use them in 2002-2003 ? when USA and UK attack Iraq ? Several long investingations showed that the answer was NO.
And even if....quite hard to destroy a country with simple presomptions...
And when did Iraq use these WMD ? not recently...if you always think to several and several years past...well, Germany should pay for the Nazis, and France for the death of thousands of Saraceens during the Crusades....

And if, for you, the possession of WMD is enough to attack, what about North Korea ?

I don't mean to hold the absolute truth, but this can give to some, and to you, a different way to thik and to see the problem.

 

[liberalogic]

This will sound very harsh and I don't mean it sound this way, but it will.

I do not support the troops nor do I support the war. I find it hyppocritical for ANY US citizen (especially the majority of liberals) to say "Oh, I don't support the war, but I support the troops!"

How can that be? If you don't support what they're fighting for, how can you be supporting them?

I find the war in IRAQ to be unjust and a war based on deception. Look, we're not going to agree on this because there are so many clashing facts that say he had weapons, that say he didn't, or that say something else. I believe the war was fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. To be quite frank, for those who say we need to liberate Iraq because it's the right thing to do, I disagree...it's not our obligation to free countries from dictators just for shits and giggles. I oppose the war and I PERSONALLY, feel that too many kids have died in vain protecting an unjust cause.

 

[padisha emperor]

This will sound very harsh and I don't mean it sound this way, but it will.

I do not support the troops nor do I support the war. I find it hyppocritical for ANY US citizen (especially the majority of liberals) to say "Oh, I don't support the war, but I support the troops!"

How can that be? If you don't support what they're fighting for, how can you be supporting them?

I find the war in IRAQ to be unjust and a war based on deception. Look, we're not going to agree on this because there are so many clashing facts that say he had weapons, that say he didn't, or that say something else. I believe the war was fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. To be quite frank, for those who say we need to liberate Iraq because it's the right thing to do, I disagree...it's not our obligation to free countries from dictators just for shits and giggles. I oppose the war and I PERSONALLY, feel that too many kids have died in vain protecting an unjust cause.

I don't support this war at all too, but I think that when people say "we support the troops but not the war" they mean : they hope the soldiers won't be killed. i'm sure you don't want too.

 

[dilloduck]

This will sound very harsh and I don't mean it sound this way, but it will.

I do not support the troops nor do I support the war. I find it hyppocritical for ANY US citizen (especially the majority of liberals) to say "Oh, I don't support the war, but I support the troops!"

How can that be? If you don't support what they're fighting for, how can you be supporting them?

I find the war in IRAQ to be unjust and a war based on deception. Look, we're not going to agree on this because there are so many clashing facts that say he had weapons, that say he didn't, or that say something else. I believe the war was fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. To be quite frank, for those who say we need to liberate Iraq because it's the right thing to do, I disagree...it's not our obligation to free countries from dictators just for shits and giggles. I oppose the war and I PERSONALLY, feel that too many kids have died in vain protecting an unjust cause.

I sorta like the idea of sending the message that America is not so PC that we won't kick some ass if we are attacked. Even if that attack comes in the form of some chicken shit terrorist. As for the parade? You're free to stay home unlike citizens of other countries. Why? US soldiers died for your right to do that. I wouldn't want to have to stand by your sorry ass in a parade anyway.

 

[5stringJeff]

This will sound very harsh and I don't mean it sound this way, but it will.

I do not support the troops nor do I support the war. I find it hyppocritical for ANY US citizen (especially the majority of liberals) to say "Oh, I don't support the war, but I support the troops!"

How can that be? If you don't support what they're fighting for, how can you be supporting them?

I find the war in IRAQ to be unjust and a war based on deception. Look, we're not going to agree on this because there are so many clashing facts that say he had weapons, that say he didn't, or that say something else. I believe the war was fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. To be quite frank, for those who say we need to liberate Iraq because it's the right thing to do, I disagree...it's not our obligation to free countries from dictators just for shits and giggles. I oppose the war and I PERSONALLY, feel that too many kids have died in vain protecting an unjust cause.

So basically, you're saying 'f**k the troops and their immoral war'?

 

[liberalogic]

Yes, actually I am. I agree with Padisha in that I don't want them to die, but at the same I don't see how sending them my support (or my encouragement) is any good if its hollow to begin with.

 

[CSM]

CSM, i have humor, but understand that when it's the 121654544676464767667676576765767 th time, it's quite boring, isn't it ?

Exactly. The same is true of your rhetoric about illegal wars, European superiority, etc.

Monte Cassino : the french free forces (the "Tabors Marocains") did an awesome job. Without them, the Mount would probably not fall "so quickly". But it didn't erase the valor and courage of the brave polish corps.
But it wxas the French Expeditionnary Corps lead by the Général Juin who broke the locked area who allowed the liberation of Rome.

I disagree. The Allies had already bypassed the Mount by that time.

For Rome, I really believe that the French were the first unit to enter into the city.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are wrong.

Berchtesgaden :
"On May 4, the Third Infantry Division reached the resort town of Berchtesgaden and from there took a narrow, twisting road a few miles up to Obersalzberg, some 1,200 feet above. It found the French Second Armored, the first of the Free French troops to have entered Paris in 1944, already there. Nobody much cared who was first. "

I find it quite curious that the verbage you quote states 4 May as the date and yet the map shows 5 thru 8 May as the date. Whoever rewrote the history needs to be more careful.

then, it seems that nobody know really who was first.
here : map of the 2nd Armored Division's progression in Bavaria.

for my "compliments", I'm sorry, accept my apologizes, but when I come here and read always that France, French, and France's history suck...quite boring, irritating, and all the bad feelings you want.

Right. All we ever hear from you is how bad the US is and how much better France and the EU is. It is quite boring, irritating and "all the bad feelings you want"

For the US in WWI : I never thought that, look back my post : just after I said that you 'ld disagree xith the statement, exactly the kind of statement you - not specially you, you in general, for plural - made about France.
Just to show you how it's boring, and your reaction prooves that I was right, it's boring.

I got that part well enough and walked into it willingly.

You have gotten my curiosity up about Monte Casino; I will be researching this and let you know what I find.

 

[CSM]

PE here is what I found about Rome and who got there first:

Rome-Arno
22 January-9 September 1944
Rome was quiet on the morning of 4 June 1944. Propaganda leaflets dropped during the early morning hours by order of the commander of the Allied 15th Army Group, General Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander, urged Romans "to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to protect the city from destruction and to defeat our common enemies." Even though the retreating Germans had declared Rome an open city, citizens were urged to do everything possible to protect public services, transportation facilities, and communications. "Citizens of Rome," the leaflets declared, "this is not the time for demonstrations. Obey these directions and go on with your regular work. Rome is yours! Your job is to save the city, ours is to destroy the enemy."
Hours later the first Fifth Army units, elements of the U.S. 3d, 85th, and 88th Infantry Divisions and the 1st Special Service Force, reached the outskirts of the city, encountering only scattered German resistance. The citizens of Rome remained indoors as instructed, but on the following day, 5 June, throngs of ecstatic Italians spilled into the streets to welcome the Americans as the main elements of the Fifth Army moved north through the city in pursuit of the Tenth and Fourteenth Armies. The stay of Fifth Army combat units in the city was brief, however, and within days the battle for Italy resumed to the north.

from this site:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/romar/72-20.htm

This site has a great description of the battle for Monte Casino as well as the breakthrough of the Allies (Gustav Line). Turns out the 4th Morocan Mountain Division captured Mount Majo is what really enabled the Allies to break the line because of the dominant position the Morocans had.

The site also indicates that the Americans entered Rome first:

During the night of 4 June elements of the 1st Special Service Force, 1st Armored Division, and the 3d, 34th, 36th, 85th, and 88th Infantry Divisions entered Rome and quickly moved north. On the following morning large numbers of Romans poured into the streets to give the long columns of American soldiers still passing through Rome a tumultuous welcome. The American troops who actually liberated the city, however, had passed through Rome during the early morning hours in darkness and near silence and were again engaging the Germans along a twenty-mile front on the Tiber River.

 

[CSM]

The capture of Berchtesgarden:

On May 2, 1945, the 3rd "Rock of the Marne" Infantry Division captured Salzburg, Austria, after facing almost no opposition. Suprised by the easy capture of Salzburg, the commander of the 3rd ID, Major General John W. "Iron Mike" O'Daniel, realized that the 7th "Cottonbalers" Infantry Regiment was now in a perfect position to make a dash for Berchtesgaden. There was just one problem; Supreme Commander General Eisenhower had already ordered the French 2nd Armored Division and the American 101st Airborne Division to take Berchtesgaden.

As the situation existed on the morning of May 4, the French 2nd Armored and the 101st Airborne were not in as good a position to take Berchtesgaden as the 3rd Infantry. The 7th Regiment controlled the only two remaining bridges over the Saalach River. Anyone wishing to get to Berchtesgaden would have to cross the Saalach over one of these bridges. On the morning of the 4th, O'Daniel decided to ignore his orders and send the Cottonbalers into Berchtesgaden.

The 1st and 3rd battalions of the 7th Regiment set out on two separate routes to Bechtesgaden. The 1st headed west over the most direct route, while the 3rd swung east on the autobahn. The two pincers were to proceed deliberately, not recklessly, and meet in Berchtesgaden. In the meantime, O'Daniel set up a roadblock at the Saalach bridges and left orders that no one was to cross without his express consent and immediatly set about making himself very hard to find.

After facing only small resistence, the 1st Battalion entered Berchtesgaden at 1558 on May 4. The 3rd Battalion arrived two minutes later.

In the meantime, the French 2nd Armored and the 101st Airborne made separate approaches to Berchtesgaden. The Screaming Eagles had found a small footbridge and sent some patrols across. But they were nowhere near Berchtesgaden, and if they wanted to cross the Saalach in strength, they needed O'Daniel's bridges. The French approached those bridges directly. At about 1700, General Jacques Philippe Leclerc attempted to cross one of the bridges, but the guards would not let him pass. Fuming, the general demanded to speak to O'Daniel. After finding him, Leclerc and O'Daniel argued for a time. But then the 3rd ID commander received the word that Berchtesgaden was in the hands of the Cottonbalers. The French were now allowed to cross the bridges and head for Berchtesgaden. They arrived around 2000 that evening, about four hours after the first American troops. The paratroopers of the 101st got there the following morning between 0900 and 1000.

All the while that the French and the paratroopers were trying to cross the Saalach, the 7th Infantry was exploring Berchtesgaden and Hitler's Eagle's Nest. They even found Herman Goering's personal liquor stock and his special automobiles. After the French arrived the area was divided into occupation zones. The next morning the 7th soldiers headed up to the Eagle's Nest for a flag raising ceremony. But now the French refused to let them pass, as Hitler's house was in their occupation zone. The situation was defused by an agreement for a joint flagraising ceremony.

Shortly after the ceremony, the 7th learned that it was to be relieved by the 101st's 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. On the 5th, Berchtesgaden was alive with Allied soldiers, especially Screaming Eagles, many of whom somehow got the idea that they had gotten there first. The Cottonbalers had left behind little evidence of their presence as a result of strict orders by their commander against looting. And, somehow, the 7th and 506th soldiers did not encounter each other. In the resulting confusion, many of the paratroopers, including several members of E Company, 506th Regiment, naturally thought that they had been the first ones into Berchtesgaden.

After the war, the notion that the 101st captured Berchtesgaden stuck as the Screaming Eagles got much more noteriety than the Rock of the Marne. It is not, however, a fact: The 7th Infantry Regiment took Berchtesgaden and the Eagle's Nest first. Not only is this recorded in potentially biased sources such as Fedala to Berchtesgaden, the 7th Regiment's WWII history, and The Third Infantry Division in World War II or the recollections of 7th Infantry veterans, but also in other more neutral sources. Charles MacDonald in The Last Offensive, the U.S. Army's official history of the final campaign in Europe, wrote of the race to Berchtesgaden that "motorized troops of the 3rd Division got there first, in the late afternoon of 4 May." General Eisenhower in his wartime memoir noted, "on May 4 the 3rd Division . . . captured Berchtesgaden." Even the 101st Airborne credits the 7th Infantry with getting to Berchtesgaden. Major General Maxwell Taylor, commander of the 101st, admitted in his postwar memoir, "3rd Division units got into Berchtesgaden ahead of us on the afternoon of May 4."

The history of the 101st Airborne Division in World War II, Rendezvous With Destiny, also records the true course of events. After chronicling how, on May 4, General O'Daniel sealed off the Saalach bridges to ensure that his units would win the race, the authors state: "At 1558 that day a motorized column [of the 3rd Division] entered Berchtesgaden; and that evening the 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Division entered. When General O'Daniel received the message of his regiment's entrance, he lifted his ban, allowed the 101st to come over his road, and Colonel Strayer [commander of 2nd Battalion, 506th] followed the 7th Regiment's route." The authors of Rendezvous With Destiny estimate that Strayer's soldiers reached Berchtesgaden sometime between 0900 and 1000 on May 5, a full 17 hours after the 1st Battalion of the 7th Regiment got there.

Is spite of these indisputable facts, the myth still persists even today that troopers from the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, got to Berchtesgaden first. This is largely because of an honest mistake made by Stephen Ambrose in his otherwise excellent book Band of Brothers, which chronicled the experiences of Easy Company of the 506th in WWII. Ambrose wrote of Berchtesgaden: "Everybody wanted to get there — French advancing side by side with the 101st, British coming up from Italy, German leaders who wanted to get their possessions, and every American in Europe. Easy Company got there first." In his research for the book, Ambrose heard the accounts of many Easy Company vets who honestly thought that they had won the race, and he never corroborated them with official, or even outside sources. Inexplicably, Ambrose never even checked Rendezvous With Destiny, a source that would have alerted him to the fact that the 7th Infantry had reached Berchtesgaden on the afternoon of May 4. Indeed Ambrose wrote in Band of Brothers that Easy Company made it to Berchtesgaden on the morning of the 5th, betraying his ignorance of the facts of the race to Berchtesgaden while unwittingly (and ironically) making the case that Easy had not gotten to Berchtesgaden first.

Because actor Tom Hanks enjoyed the book Band of Brothers he combined with Steven Speilberg to turn it into a miniseries for HBO. The miniseries led to a greater proliferation of the myth that Easy got to Berchtesgaden first. This is quite unfortunate, perhaps even unjust. That the 7th Infantry Regiment captured Berchtesgaden and the Eagle's Nest first is not open to debate. It is an incontrovertible fact and should be recognized as such. There is, however, no intent, in emphasizing the point so strongly, to denigrate or dismiss the Band of Brothers book or miniseries. Both are excellent studies of the American combat soldier in World War II, but they propogated a myth that, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, needs to be redressed. Nor is there any intention of disparaging the considerable bravery and sacrifice of the 101st Airborne Division. The unit won great, and deserved, fame for itself, through the valor of its soldiers. Even so, the division should not receive praise for something it did not do. Plain and simple, those who achieved the capture of Berchtesgaden should receive their due credit.


[Source: "The Last Great Prize" By John C. McManus, World War II magazine, May 2005, pgs 50-56.]

 

[padisha emperor]

OK, I probably badly understand an old report about Berchtesgaden, the French were in, but the Easy Company seems to enter in first (I saw Band Of Brother, an excellent serie, but i believe that the scenarists took some liberties with History).
Thanks for your informations.

For your feeling about my irritating posts about USA and Iraq, it can't be compare with history of France (or of any other country), History are facts, this war can be controversed, it depends of the people's feelings .When i read that France is a surrender monkeys Nation loosing everywhere, it would be like I'ld say that USA never won a war. So, I thinkk you understand my point of view, and my feeling about the vision of some of Americans about France's History. (on this board, or on some others, the worst was on TwinTower's board, here it was really a negationism of History of France.)
How a nation can lead Europe and control the world and be in the same time a surrender Nation ? that's the problem, isn't it ? Even in the lost wars, France won a lot of battles (Like the French and Indians Wars, Wikipedia has good webpages about them).
And for WWII's beginning, be sure France didn't surrender without any fight : De Gaulle's tank defeated the Germans (but what can do a single unit against the German Panzerdivisionen ?). France lost 90,000 soldiers during the month of May, 1940 (and 250,000 soldiers for the whole war, in France, North Africa, Italy, Germany). Often, it was bloody fights against the Germans. The soldiers were valorous and very courageous, French from France or colonial troops.
And the ultimate fight of this tragic campaign, Dunkirk, showed the valor of the French units sacrifying their lives and fought very courageously to protect the evacuation area of the british and french forces during the Dynamo operation. (It's not me who say that, but historians, like Anthony Kemp, a british author).
It's sad that this defeat of 1940 and the dissensions between our two Nations (two Nations friends since 1776, and without ANY war (!) ) make that now, some people take the French as cowards. History shows that French have for them some of the beautifulest act of honor and courage, from 496 to now. This erased 1500 years of glorious history.
For myself, be sure that I don't under-estimate the US History. And that the French don't forget the US GI's and their devotion for the freedom of France in 1944.

the only thinig I want is the respect of France's History.
I wish you will respect France and French, but it depends of your feelings. But don't dishonor the memory of the french heroes who die for France since 1500 years.

Friendly, PE.

Why? US soldiers died for your right to do that. I wouldn't want to have to stand by your sorry ass in a parade anyway.

liberallogic never shit on your flag and wish that the US soldiers die.
he just disagree with this war, it's his opinion, he has the right to explain it, because he lives in a free nation with the freedom of expression. if everybody have to support the war even if they don't want, it would be a dictatorship, what USA are not.

 

[CSM]

OK, I probably badly understand an old report about Berchtesgaden, the French were in, but the Easy Company seems to enter in first (I saw Band Of Brother, an excellent serie, but i believe that the scenarists took some liberties with History).
Thanks for your informations.

For your feeling about my irritating posts about USA and Iraq, it can't be compare with history of France (or of any other country), History are facts, this war can be controversed, it depends of the people's feelings .When i read that France is a surrender monkeys Nation loosing everywhere, it would be like I'ld say that USA never won a war. So, I thinkk you understand my point of view, and my feeling about the vision of some of Americans about France's History. (on this board, or on some others, the worst was on TwinTower's board, here it was really a negationism of History of France.)
How a nation can lead Europe and control the world and be in the same time a surrender Nation ? that's the problem, isn't it ? Even in the lost wars, France won a lot of battles (Like the French and Indians Wars, Wikipedia has good webpages about them).
And for WWII's beginning, be sure France didn't surrender without any fight : De Gaulle's tank defeated the Germans (but what can do a single unit against the German Panzerdivisionen ?). France lost 90,000 soldiers during the month of May, 1940 (and 250,000 soldiers for the whole war, in France, North Africa, Italy, Germany). Often, it was bloody fights against the Germans. The soldiers were valorous and very courageous, French from France or colonial troops.
And the ultimate fight of this tragic campaign, Dunkirk, showed the valor of the French units sacrifying their lives and fought very courageously to protect the evacuation area of the british and french forces during the Dynamo operation. (It's not me who say that, but historians, like Anthony Kemp, a british author).
It's sad that this defeat of 1940 and the dissensions between our two Nations (two Nations friends since 1776, and without ANY war (!) ) make that now, some people take the French as cowards. History shows that French have for them some of the beautifulest act of honor and courage, from 496 to now. This erased 1500 years of glorious history.
For myself, be sure that I don't under-estimate the US History. And that the French don't forget the US GI's and their devotion for the freedom of France in 1944.

the only thinig I want is the respect of France's History.
I wish you will respect France and French, but it depends of your feelings. But don't dishonor the memory of the french heroes who die for France since 1500 years.

Friendly, PE.




liberallogic never shit on your flag and wish that the US soldiers die.
he just disagree with this war, it's his opinion, he has the right to explain it, because he lives in a free nation with the freedom of expression. if everybody have to support the war even if they don't want, it would be a dictatorship, what USA are not.

Honestly, I have no quarrel with respecting French history or recognizing the courage of the French soldier. In my vast experience, soldiers are pretty much the same everywhere in that there are some who are exceedingly brave, some exceedingly foolish and a few who are just downright cowards. Most are honest reliable people trying to do a job as best they can.

 

[padisha emperor]

Honestly, I have no quarrel with respecting French history or recognizing the courage of the French soldier. In my vast experience, soldiers are pretty much the same everywhere in that there are some who are exceedingly brave, some exceedingly foolish and a few who are just downright cowards. Most are honest reliable people trying to do a job as best they can.

who say the contrary ?
But in your posts, the exceedingly foolish and the downrights cowars seem to be the only part of the French soldiers. That's all

 

[dilloduck]

OK, I probably badly understand an old report about Berchtesgaden, the French were in, but the Easy Company seems to enter in first (I saw Band Of Brother, an excellent serie, but i believe that the scenarists took some liberties with History).
Thanks for your informations.

For your feeling about my irritating posts about USA and Iraq, it can't be compare with history of France (or of any other country), History are facts, this war can be controversed, it depends of the people's feelings .When i read that France is a surrender monkeys Nation loosing everywhere, it would be like I'ld say that USA never won a war. So, I thinkk you understand my point of view, and my feeling about the vision of some of Americans about France's History. (on this board, or on some others, the worst was on TwinTower's board, here it was really a negationism of History of France.)
How a nation can lead Europe and control the world and be in the same time a surrender Nation ? that's the problem, isn't it ? Even in the lost wars, France won a lot of battles (Like the French and Indians Wars, Wikipedia has good webpages about them).
And for WWII's beginning, be sure France didn't surrender without any fight : De Gaulle's tank defeated the Germans (but what can do a single unit against the German Panzerdivisionen ?). France lost 90,000 soldiers during the month of May, 1940 (and 250,000 soldiers for the whole war, in France, North Africa, Italy, Germany). Often, it was bloody fights against the Germans. The soldiers were valorous and very courageous, French from France or colonial troops.
And the ultimate fight of this tragic campaign, Dunkirk, showed the valor of the French units sacrifying their lives and fought very courageously to protect the evacuation area of the british and french forces during the Dynamo operation. (It's not me who say that, but historians, like Anthony Kemp, a british author).
It's sad that this defeat of 1940 and the dissensions between our two Nations (two Nations friends since 1776, and without ANY war (!) ) make that now, some people take the French as cowards. History shows that French have for them some of the beautifulest act of honor and courage, from 496 to now. This erased 1500 years of glorious history.
For myself, be sure that I don't under-estimate the US History. And that the French don't forget the US GI's and their devotion for the freedom of France in 1944.

the only thinig I want is the respect of France's History.
I wish you will respect France and French, but it depends of your feelings. But don't dishonor the memory of the french heroes who die for France since 1500 years.

Friendly, PE.




liberallogic never shit on your flag and wish that the US soldiers die.
he just disagree with this war, it's his opinion, he has the right to explain it, because he lives in a free nation with the freedom of expression. if everybody have to support the war even if they don't want, it would be a dictatorship, what USA are not.

He has a right to explain it and I have the right to tell him he's full of shit--this freedom of speech things works both ways PE. If someone wishes to protest they do NOT get to do so without the consequence of a response.

 

[padisha emperor]

He has a right to explain it and I have the right to tell him he's full of shit--this freedom of speech things works both ways PE. If someone wishes to protest they do NOT get to do so without the consequence of a response.

of course, fortunatly you can answer ! the liberty works in the two directions.
I meant that even if people disagree with someone's thoughts, people should respect them.

Nevermind.

I don't think that a parade would be a good idea, I mean a parade in NY or in a big town.
A nice reception when they come back at the airport with music, why not, but the war in Iraq can't have the same parade and celebrations than WWI or WWII.

 

[dilloduck]

of course, fortunatly you can answer ! the liberty works in the two directions.
I meant that even if people disagree with someone's thoughts, people should respect them.

Nevermind.

I don't think that a parade would be a good idea, I mean a parade in NY or in a big town.
A nice reception when they come back at the airport with music, why not, but the war in Iraq can't have the same parade and celebrations than WWI or WWII.

Why not? These men and women deserve to be honored. Their sacrifices have been no less than soldiers in former wars.

 

[CSM]

Why not? These men and women deserve to be honored. Their sacrifices have been no less than soldiers in former wars.

You are getting very close to the heart of the matter. I suspect the answer will be "...because it was/is an illegal and unjust war. Soldiers who prosecuted such a war son't deserve to be honored, they deserve to be tried for warcrimes! And, by the way, it's all Bush's fault that US soldiers are criminals." Problem is, the libs haven't got the cajones to come out and say that when that is what they really mean. Then again, libs always have trouble telling the truth.

 

[Hobbit]

who say the contrary ?
But in your posts, the exceedingly foolish and the downrights cowars seem to be the only part of the French soldiers. That's all

Making fun of people is an integral part of the American way of life. After getting pretty well thrashed in WWI, France then got its butt handed to it in WWII, and after all that talk about the Maginot line, the Germans went through Belgium, just like they did in WWI. It lends itself to ridicule. If you want to feel better about it, call us fat.