You know what I find interesting?...USA's short term memory...

[buckeyefan78]

Here I go getting political again, when I said I wasn't very political, but sometimes things just make me laugh, that I can't help speak up on it.( I know Ricky, I'm going off the deep end again...LOL) Having majored in history and later getting a degree in secondary education and actually teaching high school history, as well as being employeed as a consultant for several history teaching outlets, I am quite amused with recent world developments. In particular the current American bashing of France over their stance against the U.S. in regards to possible war with Iraq.

I've heard many remarks in disdain for the French and even the following joke... An American goes up to a Frenchman in Paris and asks him " do you speak German?", to which the Frenchman replies "no". The American quickly responds with " your welcome". Point being, America is responsible for saving France from German occupation in WW1 AND WW2, in which the Frenchman would be speaking German if events were otherwise.

These unfavorable remarks and jokes are passed around by the pro-war crowd due to France's position against America in regards to Iraq. What I find interesting is the short term memory of these people or the shear ignorance of history when they make these remarks about France's " suppossed" inferiority to America and the French's past military failures in WW1 and WW2. In all fairness, anyone making these remarks, whether pro-war or anti-war are, in reality, complete morons on knowledge of history, and the reason why?...The following... without France, the United States of America would not even exist today ! France was VERY instrumental in America becoming a world leader and actually gaining their independence in nearly the first 100 years of America's existance. Let's get to the facts...

Let's start with May 2, 1776. America's year of Independence. Let's see, who's rifles, ammo, rations, and supplies were granted to the United States on this day in their war against the British? Why France of course. The American army, badly out numbered and out gunned by the British, won the war with France's military might and the help of French soldiers along with Indians, who were friendly with the French. So, let's see here, it is VERY LIKELY in my view, which is shared by a MAJORITY of historians if they were asked their HONEST opinions that without French help, America doesn't win it's war of independence and goes back to British rule. Here's my joke in regards to this " enlightenment" of the idiots I hear making anti-France jokes....A Frenchman walks up to an American in New York and asks him " do you like tea and crumpettes?" to which the American replies " No". The Frenchman then says " your welcome".

Fact 2...Feb. 6,1778...America forms a pact with the French. An " aid" pact that is. The French send their fleet and in response, the British give up Philadelphia on June 18 of the same year. Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, not New London kids thanks to the French.

Fact 3..Sept 3., 1783...U.S. signs peace treaty with British ending war. French aid " instrumental" in U.S. win. Treaty signed in Paris, where over the span of the next 200 years, America goes to discuss peace with it's enemies ( all the way up to Vietnam). This one is like, " thanks France for letting us use your gym, these are trying times, and we need a neutral place to talk".

Fact 3...1803...France sells U.S. the Louisiana territory in the Louisiana Purchase. Event doubles size of the United States, and what becomes a common theme over the late 1700s and throughout the 1800s, French cooperation with America and French generosity serve to keep resentful British where they belong instead of constantly attacking America....back in London. Although attacked in War of 1812 again by British, French help once again factors in American victory over foes.

These are just a few facts from America's early days and shows how without France, America wouldn't have been around in 1945 to rid Paris of the Germans. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying American military might and aid over the course of especially the last 100 years hasn't benefited France greatly. It has, but the thing is, this goes both ways. I hate one sided propaganda. And this is the kind of talk that once again makes foreign nations hate and despise America as being arrogant and cocky. You may say, " oh, who cares what they think?", but in today's world, the more allies you have through diplomatic means, the more young men and women in our armed services come home safely at the end of the night.

Ok, just lettin off steam there.

[Marc]

Hmm, I see your point. It's hypocritical some Americans are displaying that attitude to the French with their resistance to join us in the war. But it's damn funny, nonetheless. They had a segment on Jay Leno last night where he gave better names of countries and France should be known as "Germany (Before we saved your asses)."

But it is important to remember how important the French were in securing our independence from Britain. A lot of people have forgotten about that or just are ignorant.

[lmanchur.]

I find it interesting that the reason the United States' economy is so strong today is that it took advantage of the European economy from 1914-1946.... and I also find it hypocritical that US turns its nose against Canada today because our government hasn't joined this US-led war even though the very reason the United States is so strong today is that it sat out over 1/2 of the first two World Wars.

[buckeyefan78]

Good points SC with a lot of historical data to back them up. Hell, you short changed America's advantage taking of Europe in regards to years. The Cold War was basiclly America setting up nations to create economic gain for themselves up until 1989, the fall of the wall. Western Europe were American " colonies" in many regards as was eastern Europe for the Soviets.

In all fairness to the U.S. sitting out the first several years of both World Wars though, America wasn't attacked. The U.S. had a FIRM policy of neutralization in place before both wars started, so America was just following policy, something they should do more often.Now, that doesn't mean the U.S. was innocent in this. The U.S. believed that any nation that won the war would be a good economic partner for them. A little immoral by the U.S., especially in WWII, but that is what the U.S. believed at the time. Seems like the great moral country that the U.S. is suppossed to be, would not tolerate some of the most inhuman and heinous acts ever recorded by mankind for economic gain, but that is what the U.S's angle was in the beginning of both wars.

I think I'll send this joke to Jay Leno and see if he gives it air time... " United States...England before France saved our asses" Doubt it makes the cut though.

[qb_rms]

I don't know about that. I think the reason the US is so strong today is because they entered the war half way through (one of those "my glass is half full, my glass is half empty"). They had to build up a military in a relatively short time which employed many people in factories (they hadn't had jobs for some time due to the Great Depression).

But I think that if France hadn't helped the US gain independence, Britain would have been such a superpower that they would have been the agressors of WWII, not Germany.

But it is true, we did save them from the Germans. And they helped us gain independence. So what is the big deal.

They had to help us in order for us to save them.

[Richard the Lionheart]

First of all, Britain would have never been the aggressor in World War II.

Now to buckeye's comment: It is important to remember that France was important to America in it's infancy, but since then they havn't been much help. The last date that Buckeyefan mentioned was 1803, and their intention was never really to "help" America in that case. Napoleon would have liked nothing more than to attack America from that land he had in North America, but he was preoccupied with a war with Britain that forced him to sell the land for money. So actually, it would be more appropriate to thank Britain for the Louisianna Territory before France. And 1803 was exactly TWO HUNDRED years ago, so that pretty much speaks for itself. France has been useful in the distant past, but now they are little more than a glorified lightweight trying to throw down with the big boys.

[buckeyefan78]

To qb_rms and Ricky...Ricky's right on this one. The British would have never been the aggressor in WWII. The rise of Nazism in the economically poor German state resulted in the rise of Hitler. Germany had lost pride in WWI, and were blindless sheep to Hitler's call to glory. England too was in economic dire straits, but had no real plans on what to do to remedy the situation.

Grant it Ricky, alot of my points are in America's infancy. And France's motive behind helping America was in fact to weaken the French's true enemy, England. But come on. It is a HARD FACT that the colonies lose their fight against England without the French. Ask any historian, and they will tell you. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this didn't occurr !!!!!!!!

America " needed" France all the way up until the early 1900s, while France has " needed" America since then. Pretty broad, but overall true. I'd say from a years standpoint, America still has some years left they owe to the French if you want to make it out like that, but it's not even really about that. France and England were considered the two military super powers closing in on WWI, so technically, all those years France was protecting America from England as America protected France from Russia during the Cold War. Both needed each other, so let it go.

Another example would be the Civil War. While the British supported the South, the French supported the Union. Grant it, the Union would proably have won despite these alliances ( the South were a rag tag bunch with no money at all, but had the edge in military leaders).

The pro-war crowd are diverting attention to France's stubborness to hide the fact that Bush MAY attack a foreign state with no approval from Congress ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on the Constitution) and outside of the UN's approval ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on International Law). That is what this is about. Diverting attention from illegal actions by Bush and the U.S. government elsewhere.Blaming France for not accurately, LEGALLY, and intelligently setting your guidelines for military action is Bush's blunder. It has nothing to do with America liberating Paris close to 60 years ago.

So everyone get off France's back. They are useless and carry no weight. If they aren't convinced of an attack, think of a way around it Bush, but legally, you idiot ! To suggest America has carried them as well as everyone else on their back forever is ourageous and that is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. Fortunately for America, the military might of this nation has been enough over the years to silence the illegal acts of the American Presidents and government as a whole. This same thing will happen again this time , no doubt.

[qb_rms]

You are going to tell me that if Britain had control of the US and Canada, they wouldn't have been the aggressor of WWII? They would have been a superpower that would not have felt the effects of the Great Depression and would have annexed Germany before the rise of Hitler.

Yeah, you are probably right. Britain wouldn't have been the aggressor, but it is always a possibility. Especially if they would have been the most powerful nation on the planet...

But I never said that the US "carried the rest of the countries on it's back." I merely stated that we need each other. Without one you can't have the other.

[Brandon]

Originally posted by qb_rms
You are going to tell me that if Britain had control of the US and Canada, they wouldn't have been the aggressor of WWII? They would have been a superpower that would not have felt the effects of the Great Depression and would have annexed Germany before the rise of Hitler.

Yeah, you are probably right. Britain wouldn't have been the aggressor, but it is always a possibility. Especially if they would have been the most powerful nation on the planet...

But I never said that the US "carried the rest of the countries on it's back." I merely stated that we need each other. Without one you can't have the other.

If Britain was still that powerful who says we would have had World War I, let alone World War II?

[lmanchur.]

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
In all fairness to the U.S. sitting out the first several years of both World Wars though, America wasn't attacked.

So was Canada.

Difference was, we sacrificed over a million people regardless.

[Heathen]

But I think that if France hadn't helped the US gain independence, Britain would have been such a superpower that they would have been the agressors of WWII, not Germany.

What to say. All of the above countries have made mistakes in their history.... some bigger than others.

[rant] However, I see this Bush led campaign against Iraq as another potential mistake.

It just drives me insane thinking that he is so trigger happy. He will be sending men and women to die.... not to mention the countless thousands of innocent civilians who will die also.

I abore George W. Bush. He has an election next year.... not that this is driving him on Its the defence of America?? [/ rant]

Anyways, back to the point

The USA not only has the UK and France to thank for it's growth and birth. The vast majority of (white) America are from European origin....

[Erickson]

He will be sending men and women to die.... not to mention the countless thousands of innocent civilians who will die also.

or we could just sit around and wait for another 9/11 before we take action

[Heathen]

Are you going to war... I mean personally... are YOU going to the Gulf?

Well... it's easy to sit here and say that. No-one wants another tragedy like that... anywhere in the world. But does anyone think that Iraq had anything to do with that?? I don't...

I'm not saying he's a good guy.... he's a fooking @sshole.... I'd love to put the bullet in him myself.... but when attack the whole country.... just assasinate the SOB

[RaviPachai18]

Originally posted by SX Insider


or we could just sit around and wait for another 9/11 before we take action

Well SX Insider, maybe you missed the first time it was brought up. North Korea has threatened a nuclear war that would certainly not compare to 9/11 on any level, is the US rushing into war with them? Have they acknowledged any intention of doing so? No, they have chosen `diplomatic` means of resolving the North Korea issues.

Okay, yes, around 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. But for that you are happy to have the blood of hundreds of men and woman who serve your country (or the country of an ally) and the blood of thousands of Iraqi troops and civilians on your hands?? A number well beyond the number that died on 9/11. In all honesty, with the intelligence that the U.S. claims to hold, the skills of their military, do you believe a war is absolutely necessary!?

Iraq is in dire straits as it is, does the US really need to show its might by sending hundreds of thousands of its men and women to fight a country that is already stricken with poverty? I'm sure Saddam can be removed with much less effort than Bush is claiming.

[buckeyefan78]

SC-Lee, yes Canada wasn't attacked EVER by the Axis nations and still sent troops to fight. AMERICA HAD A FIRM, AND I MEAN A REALLY FIRM, NEUTRAL POLICY ON THE WAR. THE U.S. WAS JUST FOLLOWING POLICY IN BOTH WORLD WARS. When the U.S. was attacked, then they entered, it's as simple as that.

Now, if memory serves me ( although I am not nearly as knowledgeable on Canadian history as American), Canada was not declared a self-governing Dominion within the Biritish Empie until 1931. So, in WWI, Canada basiclly did what England told them too still ! And the same thing goes for WWII, although English influence over Canada was weaker then before, but Canada didn't sever its last formal legislative link with the British until 1982 when Canada FINALLY obtained the right to amend their own Constitution. Basiclly, my point is, Canada's fighting in both World wars was up to England, not the Canadian people and government. To guess what stance the Canadians would have taken ( send troops or wait to be attacked) would be complete speculation if they were their own COMPLETELY self governing body at the time of both wars.

The fact that Canada had really no say in these matters due to British influence and political control SHOULD NOT diminsh the bravery and sacrifice by the Canadian people themselves during these time periods. That's all.

I would also love to see the ties between the terrorists of 9/11 and the regime of Iraq. Do you know why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE ! The only link I can think between any of the world's most heinous regimes and terrorist groups is that at one time in history, MOST of them received American help in return for financial gain for the U.S. gov. or private business ( which amount to the same thing in my book). These people are killing us and others with American money, that's about the only link I know of.

To Heathen, U.S. law STRICTLY forbids assasinations of leaders from foreign states. Not that an " accident" couldn't happen to Saddam. The U.S. breaks so many laws, why not this one? Again, we all know U.S. Intelligence has constantly been working on the matter behind closed doors, just haven't got the job done. Kill him and get it over with is a good idea.

[Erickson]

Can't wait for Irag to fall....then Korea after that....

& Heathen there is a good chance I might be in the Gulf.....

[lmanchur.]

buckeye, what policy were the States following? Um, Their Own!!!!!... they could have just as easily changed it. Ya, Canada wasn't a sell-sufficient country until 1931 or 1932, but British influence wasn't the lone reason we went to war... and we had a great debate about it 'cuz the French here were just as "American" as the states were, not wanting to goto war either.

All I'm saying is, is I don't understnad why the States is so stuck up against us seeing as how we just want a multilateral approach to this war... waiting just like the States did during the first two world wars.

[air_canada]

I just want to remind you that the British asked, not ordered, if I'm not mistaken, Canada to aid them in their war effort. Canada possessed and still possesses great industrial power in, for one, the domain of aluminum production. Aluminum was one of the most needed products during the war, used to construct everything from helmets to tanks to rifle parts. Some of this aluminum was produced in my hometown, after the construction of a dam during WWII in which several people died. Canadians, even if their troops didn't make much of an impact, were always involved in one way or another.

I invite you to look at this link, concerning GERMANS for American independence:

http://www.americanrevolution.org/flohr2.html

[buckeyefan78]

YEAH, ENGLAND " ASKED" CANADA FOR HELP IN THE WARS...SURE THEY DID ( SAID VERY SARCASTICLY). Just like when your mom " asked" you to do stuff as a kid...no, SHE TOLD YOU ! The Canadians were not a government fully by themselves, they were still under heavy Brtish influence,and alot of actual British governmental rule. This is in no way to disrespect Canada or their people, it's just the way it was. Hey, same scenario happened alot to future Americans in the 1750s when the colonists were " asked" to help fight off French and Indian foes of the British. No, it was clear that if the colonists ( future Americans) didn't help, they would suffer consequences from the government ( British) that was controlling them at the time.

Hell, I'm not questioning the bravery and morally correct fact that Canada helped in the war, all I'm saying is that it is unclear what Canada's role in the wars would have been if they were their own soverign nation at the time, thats all.Based on what I know of Canadian government and people, I believe they would have fought anyway, cause they are people of respect and morals ! (even more then America alot of times !!!!!)

The United States government were following a policy of neutralization declared on Sept 5, 1939, a few days after the Germans marched through Poland.

At the time, as in the first World War, American sentiment was this. Europe is Europe. Let them do what they want, it has no bearing on us. Remember, at the time of both World Wars, esp. WWI, America was not the super power they became. What reason SC-Lee, would America have for entering either war before attacked? American interests were not threatened and neither were it's borders. I actually thought it was a good policy due to America's limited military and resources compared to the super powers of the time ( England, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia). One theory, not often heard in America, is that Roosevelt was looking to get into the war to ease the Great Depression and ignored the warning signs of Pearl Harbor. True or not, WWII ended the GD for America.

The circumstances SC_Lee are totally different from WWII and now. Why does the U.S. want war so bad and is pushing everyone along you ask? America wants support for this war for several reasons. First, if other nations cooperate, American cost and casuality is held down. Second, the unified response is harder on Iraq, who will try to play political games to get America's non-supporters to put pressure on the U.S. The unified response will also be helpful in " showing" America's other main enemy , N. Korea, that the U.S. is not to be played with.

The biggest reason why though is this SC_Lee. If the U.S. attacks Iraq without clearance from the UN, this will be an ILLEGAL war based on international law, in which rogue nations will rejoice at and stir up trouble elsewhere ( N. Korea with S. Korea and China with Taiwan). America would not be able to use the line " we attacked because Iraq hasn't followed through on the UN Resolutions", if France and Germany collaborate to veto the UN's official line on the matter. Basiclly, the U.S. would be acting as one nation attacking another without being provoked, purely ILLEGAL. ( America will get away with it though, cause hell, their America)

At this point, I don't understand why, ( although it may be going on behind closed doors) aren't the Americans telling the French and Germans to give acceptance to the attack and we'll make sure you guys don't have to do much and there will be something in it down the road for you. This would put more burden on America in the fight, but if Bush is so hell bent on war, he's going to have to do something like this at this point, cause no one likes America's positon right now. This is how America has worked since the beginning of time, a nation of used car salesmen. It would have been nice for everyone to approve, but they aren't, so America is going to have to sacrifice a little to get that approval, but if that's what it takes, appearantly the U.S. is willing to do it.

[qb_rms]

If we were to assasinate Saddam, who's to say that his son or somebody else won't take over and continue to opress the people.

I found one comment of interest...

Somebody said that since Iraq is already in poverty, why do we need to attack them?

Well, for one, who's fault is that? You got it, Saddam. Secondly, if the US was to oust the current regime and impose a new government, we might be able to rebuild their economy like we did with the Germans and Japanese after WWII.