Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Dare The French Forget!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:37 PM
link   


They Died For France but France Has Forgotten


COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France - They stand only 3 feet high, but they're towering mountains of sacrifice.
I'm standing in the American Cemetery. Gray clouds hang low as if in mourning for the nearly 10,000 young Americans buried beneath crosses and Stars of David that stretch as far as the eye can see. The air is chill, but I feel an unnatural glow of rage - I want to kick the collective butts of France....

Full Article




posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Nothing new for the French.

Take NATO for example, when the French pulled out of it. They knew they would be protected regardless as it would be logistically impracticle to let the Soviets invade and take France, so they knew NATO would be forced to protect them, anyway. They had protection, paid for by others.
Sad.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Yes TC, De Gaulle only pulled out of NATO to strengthen his own hand. He realized that even if they were not in NATO that we would hold back the Soviets. Yet he also toyed with them as well. My understanding is that he played as many sides as he could.... enough. We live in a different time. Yes there are gray areas but you must be able to tell gray from black...France no longer can do that.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Came here looking for Nans' response....I needed a puzzle to work on....



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 08:38 AM
link   
TaDa!

and that!
ladys and gentlemen, is what I'm talking about on the reasoned arguments thread in the war forum.

france has forgotten?
good.
who cares.
great idea.

why the hell should anyone currently living in france, the UK or the US feel they have to support a military strike by one country simply because a previous generation fought in a war?

Seriously?
Its like telling germans that they should feel guilty about the holocaust, its like telling the US they should give their land back to the british.

I had absolutely diddle squat to do with WW2.
most of us did.
and frankly, the government that went to war isn't the government thats in power now.

you don't tell Bush he should become a monk because clinton screwed an intern, why the hell are people bringing up WW2?!?!

this is such utter heart string pulling clap trap, frankly I thought most of you had more sense.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Ahhh, so America went to war (after a good few thousand deaths already, why didnt you join earlier?) To help and to save lives did you? Right, so it had nothing to do with being attacked by teh Japanese then?

Learn something new everyday when America changes history.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101

why the hell are people bringing up WW2?!?!



Because the USA saved us during the WW1 and WW2, and now, they are protecting us one more time. But I agree on one thing, they are doing it against our will ( please, remove my name from the " our " ).

I know and I understand that if we are all here ( even you Lupe ), speaking about everything, writting on so many subject, we can say " THANK YOU GUYS " ( GUYS = the USA ).

Because without them, we were all speaking German or Russian !!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:11 AM
link   
yeah...
course the flip side of that is Bush dragging us into a war we don't want to be a part of for his own adgenda.

but regardless, I still don't see what that has to do with WW2 any more than the US turning up late to ww2 has anything to do with Iraq.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101

but regardless, I still don't see what that has to do with WW2 any more than the US turning up late to ww2 has anything to do with Iraq.


You still don't see and you will never see.Because you don't want to see. And when someone don't want to see....



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod
Ahhh, so America went to war (after a good few thousand deaths already, why didnt you join earlier?) To help and to save lives did you? Right, so it had nothing to do with being attacked by teh Japanese then?

Learn something new everyday when America changes history.


Yes, America did join the war after being attacked by the Japanese. However that didn't mean they had to commit forces to Europe, especially as it would prolong the war in the Pacific. I believe as well the US made VE the no.1 priority not the Pacific War. They could have just as easily supplied the material of war without losing hundreds of thousands of US lives. Especially as Germany wasn't in a position to attack the US.
Get a clue, think about that ridiculous statement you just made.

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by mad scientist]



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Lupe_101

but regardless, I still don't see what that has to do with WW2 any more than the US turning up late to ww2 has anything to do with Iraq.


You still don't see and you will never see.Because you don't want to see. And when someone don't want to see....


Yes Lupe thinks that the past should be forgotten, just like that.
What he doesn't realize is how the US saved Europe and has allowed them to have the standards of living they have today. I mean practically rebuilding and feeding the whole of Europe was probably the greatest humanitarian deed in history.
And then for the next 40 years spending trillions of $ on the protection of Europe from a very real Soviet threat.

Tell me Lupe if someone saved your life would you still think the past irrelevent if they needed your help ?



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 09:54 AM
link   
"Tell me Lupe if someone saved your life would you still think the past irrelevent if they needed your help ? "

null argument.

If I saved somones life, would I constantly lambast their kid who's never met me for not helping me out?

what the US did in the war has nothing to do with Iraq.
what, would you reject germanys help based on the fact that in the past they caused a holocaust?

its just silly.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Firstly,Both Japan and Germany declared war on the USA after attacking them.Where as both Britain,Australia,NZ and France declared war on Germany.

Secondly,Any General or politician would be far happier fighting a war on someone elses territory rather than their own.

Thirdly,The Soviet Union was already rolling back the German front well before any Second front was opened.

Finally,Just how long should European countries prostrate themselves in gratitude?It's half a century already.Britain,for one,paid for the priviledge of USA help infact we are still paying surely we don't have to grovel and pay for the priviledge of grovelling.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:16 AM
link   
WWII as a reference point to weigh the merits of inclusion or opposition to the US desired Iraqi war? Silly.

"US: they are protecting us one more time."
No, we're not. We're simply pushing forth our domestic interests. That you don't see the massive instability in the region that will occur is just plain short sighted.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:24 AM
link   


Ahhh, so America went to war (after a good few thousand deaths already, why didnt you join earlier?) To help and to save lives did you? Right, so it had nothing to do with being attacked by teh Japanese then?


Now using that for hindsight,going to Iraq now would be a good thing.Now the U.S. is being pro-active about a problem,well France,Germany, and Russia are sitting back and waiting.

But the bottom line is the U.S. is in a catch 22. If we go to war people are pissed because they think we are trying to take over the world.If we don't take out Saddam,then people are going to blast the U.S. for not doing anything when we had the chance.
Guess you can't make everbody happy.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Thats why we elect leaders to make decisions and pay them a stupid amount to take the responsibility.

I have no doubt we'll be going into Iraq.
and it pisses me off, but in the end I elected Blair to make decsisions for me.

I judge this to be a bad one and, adding up prior bad decisions somone else is getting my vote next time.

but ultimately its up to him to do what he thinks right.

Again though.
what on earth has WW2 got to do with this.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I did not vote for Blair I voted for Kennedy.I think that those that did ,did so on the basis of the Labour Party Manifesto.Amoung other things that were promised was an ethical foreign policy(don't laugh).

Also, people have the right to expect that their elected representatives will act within international law.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

1) "US: they are protecting us one more time."
No, we're not. We're simply pushing forth our domestic interests.

2) That you don't see the massive instability in the region that will occur is just plain short sighted.


1) Not at all. We are protecting our short-comming future ( the next 10 up to 20 years ).

2) I see that this region is completely unstable, and after this war, this region will be more stable. It will help us to keep a closed eye on Iran , Lybia and Arabia Saoudia.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
"Also, people have the right to expect that their elected representatives will act within international law. "

maybe. I certainly didn;'t think he'd deviate so far, on so many issues, from his original adgenda.

sod it. With any luck this will cause a renewed three party system. I'm certainly voting lib dem.



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Bout Time

1) "US: they are protecting us one more time."
No, we're not. We're simply pushing forth our domestic interests.

2) That you don't see the massive instability in the region that will occur is just plain short sighted.


1) Not at all. We are protecting our short-comming future ( the next 10 up to 20 years ).

2) I see that this region is completely unstable, and after this war, this region will be more stable. It will help us to keep a closed eye on Iran , Lybia and Arabia Saoudia.


Nope, nada no way. We are recruiting Jihadist by the truckload in what will be perceived, rightfully so, as theft of resources and Iraqi birthright. Want an historical reference? Look at post World War I Germany and how the vultures used that countries output to offset costs and usurp wealth; who came out of THAT environment!?!

That region is unstable now with stability around the corner post "war"? You mean that? You think that an occupying force and military governor will do that?






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join