About some old bashing

I want to talk about relationship between France and USA.
I'm french, and even if people of my country don't like the way of thinking of America, we respect it.

So, why, when I go on 4 chan and I see a topic about a french subject, I read always France bashing.

France, a normal country in a normal world, is so hated in America ? Why ? Our history is full of friendship!

Think of Lafayette for example

I must disagree.

A few things: Mussolini gave the Greeks both time to organise and gain experience. Furthermore, just like England, it's surrounded by a body of water, which the British Navy took advantage of.

And lastly, four Greek battalions, and at least 25,000 English, Aussies and Kiwis are not a militia.

ahem, i was referring not to the island itself but a specific town

Urban warfare has always been ugly.

I suppose if the French had really stuck to their guns in town, it could have presented the Nazis with a problem. At that time nobody was carpet bombing.

>>39
Comparing any military to the french military is like comparing risotta cheese with the argentinian weaving industry.

Ok, this thread is tl;dr, but all I want to say is that France is superior to other European countries. It is the best country in Europe and one of the best countries in the world (along with USA and Japan).

Haha, I remember the U.S surrendering to Vietnam. And they have the tenacity to call the French cowards.

The US certainly gave it a good try though.

Face it, conventional doctrine is little good against guerillias, as has been proven over and over again. It's a war for minds.

THE FRENCH AND SWEDISH THOUGHT THE NAZIS WOULD CONQUER THE WORLD SO THEY CAPITULATED, NOW THEY LIVE IN FREEDOM AS A DEMOCRACY DUE TO THE SACRIFICE OF AMERICAN LIVES AT NORMANDY.

Moar liek Soviet lives, amirite?

Just kidding.

america sucks, lol

>>50
Fail for saging a post that is at the top of the list.

>>51
Fail for such a stupid comment. So what?

>>46
        "Haha, I remember the U.S surrendering to Vietnam. And they have the tenacity to call the French cowards."
     That is hardly a comparitive argument.  For starters We were fighting in Vietnam, Not the United States.  If the US were getting invaded and We surrendered with little fight. fine OK.  Vietnam was a war that was mismanaged by our side, just like WWII was with the french, fine.  We didn't actually surrendered, because surrendering means you say to the other pary of a war "i's over, we are beat into submission, our nation is open to you".  We simply pulled our support from South Vietnam, which really wasn't that great of a nation anyways.  Also it is directly opposing our foreign policy at the time in the fact that we weren't supposed to put 0ur troops into places like that, we were simply supposed to be arming the natives of that area.  Kennedy got us in there and changed it causing the problem, Johnson saw it escaltae, Nixon didn't really see a way to get out at first, and ran again on the platform of getting us out in six months.  And he actually did it.  This is in the same way that if Kerry were elected in 2004 and pulled us out of iraq, we wouldn't be surrendering to iraq, we would simply be pulling our support from the govenment we placed there.  Not surrendering and opening our nation to Iraq the way france did to germany. 

>>48
        The French army failed in those first months.  The french preserved and acted bravely for their nation afterwards.  French lost more lives in the against germany.  If anyone bought the the defeat of germany in blood it was the Russians.  This is because Stalin used traditional Russian tactics of war of simply sending so many human meatwalls towards the enemy that they eventually run out of bullets, and are overwealmed.

>>47
          WE DIDN'T give it a god try.  the war was mismanaged and we told are troops to hold the line against an enemy that didn't use lines.  We changed our methods lightly to compensate, but overall we failed to really try to win the war, and focused on holding north Vietnam off.  We could have simply taken out Ho Chi Min and put into place a new govenment and it would have turned out better.  We tried it again in Korea, but it was different as we had more extensive treaties with korea regarding their protection.  And lets not kid ourselves.  The Korean war was Really the China-American war.

>>38
       Yes the Jews had it THOUSANDS of years before.  There was not a generation of jews that remembered the generation of jews that held Isreal.  Next yes it was british land to begin with and thier gift to the jews, and the land was still partly from palastine and partly from Jordan.  Yes, They were all nomadic desert people, however that land wasn't, being near water and having good resorces it could be constanly maintained.  Also look at it like this:  They looked at the sprawling dessert of the middle east and gave one of the largest oasises around to someone not from there.  There is obviously a little argument from that. 
    There is a generation of palistinians that remember having posession of isreal.  that remember living in THEIR city.  that remember the history of them controling it for a thousand years previously.  The Jews lost it to history in a war with the Palistinians.  The palisinians lost it to someone not from that but from it simply being given to someone else.  They were ruled fairly loosly by the british,  they did not expect to wake up one moring and read in the newpaper "your nation now belongs to the jews, it is time for you to move".  I mean really would you put up with that shit?

>>26
Britain gave the land to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration, and they had owned that entire area of the Middle East, but then again, that was awfully mean of the Brits to Subjugate other peoples for imperialistic endevours.

Hooray for generalization, steriotyping and acusations at the drop of a hat!

>>53   Yes the Jews had it THOUSANDS of years before.  There was not a generation of jews that remembered the generation of jews that held Isreal.  Next yes it was british land to begin with and thier gift to the jews, and the land was still partly from palastine and partly from Jordan.  Yes, They were all nomadic desert people, however that land wasn't, being near water and having good resorces it could be constanly maintained.  Also look at it like this:  They looked at the sprawling dessert of the middle east and gave one of the largest oasises around to someone not from there.  There is obviously a little argument from that.
    There is a generation of palistinians that remember having posession of isreal.  that remember living in THEIR city.  that remember the history of them controling it for a thousand years previously.  The Jews lost it to history in a war with the Palistinians.  The palisinians lost it to someone not from that but from it simply being given to someone else.  They were ruled fairly loosly by the british,  they did not expect to wake up one moring and read in the newpaper "your nation now belongs to the jews, it is time for you to move".  I mean really would you put up with that shit?

yes and after the british gave it to the jews the arabs started a war in which israel severly fucked them up. so by your statement "The Jews lost it to history in a war with the Palistinians" then wouldnt the first arab israeli war have solidified possession of the land by the jews, thus making it a non issue?

How did this thread go from gay French men to the Jewish masterplan of world conquest?

My point was that Isreal was somthing that British, French and American governments started, enforced and backed, and America is the one that gets all the blame for the middle east conflicts resulting and France and Britan both pulled out.  Now this was because both France and Britan both had much more pressing domestic problems resulting from WWII which hit them much closer to home than it did the US, requiring America fit more and more of the bill.  This happened coutless other times thoughout the cold war.  With British and french financing falling back and requesting the US to take over funding the Anti-Solviet forces in various areas.

lol, I drive a Bicycle.

>>58
Ah, I can explain that.

The reason amerika gets the blame is because they stopped the Lord, Hitler from his Glorious plan of World Domination and Jew Extermination.

If they had allowed him to go on about his stuff, the world would have been a much better place!

>>46
Most americans don't seem to know about that.  Not nowadays anyway...they think we haven't lost a war.

>>60
    Seriously what is the point of spelling "america" "amerika", what do you gain.  I understand if you are stupid and trying to call it "amerikka" for dramatic effect, but really, wtf is with spelling it "amerika"

you spell it amerika if your stupid and british and want to set yourself apart from the rest of the 4 chan herd, and you spell it america if you have any common sense

http://www.uaca.ac.cr/acta/1998nov/lreed.htm

The great depression was the result of the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, and the shitty monetary policy we had resulting from that.  If we kept to our more or less laissez-faire style economy of the previous century, we'd be way better off now. 

This isn't the only website to explain this, seriously.  You people need to read more.  Hoover didn't cause the great depression, he inherited it.  With the Federal Reserve there, and the monetary policy like it was, the economy was bound to tank eventually anyway.  Hoover just inherited it, likely. 

Theodore Roosevelt was a statist.  Social security is nothing more than a bankrupt pyramid scheme. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm

We would do good to revert to the policies we had before the Federal Reserve.  They encouraged production, trade, business, and everything that created the industrial revolution, and the standard of living we enjoy today.

http//www.amazon.com/...