what's the problem with french ?

[erwan]

Since I'm french and working for the army, i have a few questions for american, which are most part of this forum
1 Did you realize that if some of your posts are really full of hate towards french, people in french never say such things about american in our country; we are only wondering if the pax americana is always the only solution to resolve international problems, but never in such violent way
2 can you explain me the difference , for you, between vassal and allied
3 if we are so weak, insignifiant and ridiculous, why are you wasting so much of your precious time with us ( for example writing posts like: **** you mother ****er **** frog faggot in the ass)
4 french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia; i can say i'm proud of it; but since you seem to hate french, must i deduce that it's a shame for you and that you would prefer, for example, brits to do the job ( sure they'd done it right)

[ScoutRanger]

Please don't generalize a few idiots for all americans. I dont dislike the french, I dislike france as in its political agenda.

[Ratamacue]

Same as Ranger, here. I have no problem with French people at all. I dislike, as he said, the French government's political agenda.

And again, don't generalize France-haters as Americans. On another forum, somebody posted a thread making fun of the French as a joke, and after a couple replies a French person started yelling at all the "Yankees" who thought it was funny. Of course, he didn't realize that everyone who had replied before him was from the UK or Australia.

[warchild1/27scout]

i got to respect thier troops but the government and thier civvies are a bunch soft surrender ****e losers.hey not all but a good majority.look at america we got the democratic party that would probably turn gen. franks over to the belgiums for war crimes if they thought euros would like them more.so,hey don't get all upset political correctness is rampant around the world like the sars virus. :lol:

[globe]

At least the SARS virus is under control and stoppable. ;)

[He219]

erwan, generally I agree with GoRanger. As for your points:


people in french never say such things about american in our country
I totally disagree.


can you explain me the difference , for you, between vassal and allied
As an ally France certainly can disagree, but not aid the enemy by developing alliances countering US action and interests. The definition for vassal that applies is that France hates the idea of being subordinate to or dependent upon the US.


why are you wasting so much of your precious time with us
Good question. We're just having a little fun.


french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia
Thanks. How about sending troops to Iraq for humanitarian and peacekeeping reasons?

Hate is a strong word. Americans are hugely diappointed at the French Government as an 'ally'.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/index.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/chirac_putin_schroeder_stooges.jpg

[warchild1/27scout]

rofl

[Seiyuuki]

4 french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia; i can say i'm proud of it; but since you seem to hate french, must i deduce that it's a shame for you and that you would prefer, for example, brits to do the job ( sure they'd done it right)

What's this about Liberia...is this something new? Are you referring to the current situation?????? I thought we were discussing about sending Marines into Liberia??????

(I respect all fighting men and women everywhere, may it be French or some other country) Actually...I do prefer the British...let me see...I got more confidence in them, I have more faith and trust in them, we earned their respect and vice versa...and not to forget they been one the few countries that has been through thick and thin with us in...well...almost every situations, hard or easy


must i deduce that it's a shame for you and that you would prefer, for example, brits to do the job ( sure they'd done it right)
And by the assuming tone of words, WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSE TO MEAN?

Doesn't that seem contradictory?

[cut]

He219:
when did you turn so anti french?

I dislike chirac and bush in equal measure, i think that is the best way.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

So you're wondering why international problems are resolved in a violent way?, why don't you ask your intelligence services why they sank a greenpeace vessel in a foreign harbour sixteen years ago. Never mind the fact some of the agents involved were caught and imprisoned by a small and at the time unarmed police force, REAL professional. What sort of threat did greenpeace pose to your mighty nation?. And how about the Rwanda/burundi debacle, former colony's of france weren't they. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with another countrys policies, but if that country has had a major hand in saving your country from being enslaved a couple of times, and in doing so left many of their best young men forever on your shores, like he219 said, pay backs a bitch.
You and your country should be a little more thankful, think of how many allied soldiers, sailors and airmen lie in your war cemetarys before you open your mouth's.

[ESCOBAR]

well......................if u lived in Canada, u'd understand how the french are. They cry n bitch......soo much crap.

[RoBBo]

im sorry but ww2 was 60 odd years ago. you cannot sit here and tell me that because of actions taken 60 years ago the french are obligated to go along with everything the americans say or do. if you think they are then you are taking away frances right to be an independent nation.
people in these forums talk about the french bitching and moaning but to me it seems like the only people bitching and moaning are the americans.

[budanski]

im sorry but ww2 was 60 odd years ago. you cannot sit here and tell me that because of actions taken 60 years ago the french are obligated to go along with everything the americans say or do. if you think they are then you are taking away frances right to be an independent nation.
people in these forums talk about the french bitching and moaning but to me it seems like the only people bitching and moaning are the americans.

Excuse us american idiots. But if France wants an opinion fine. But when they go out of their way to hinder the U.S. within the U.N. that is another animal. Disagreeing allies abstain. France was acting as an opposition or what they like to say... counter balance to the U.S.

counterbalance
1. To act as a counteracting force, influence, or weight: counterpoise 2. To oppose with an equal force; offset.

[theGHOST]

Robbo, tell me sumthing do u live in CAnada?

It was juss WW2 buddy, we also helped there ass in WW1. The French talked about how they always stood up for the rights of humanity b4 the war started, but was it not the Frnech who oppressed there ppl that started to the French Rebolution, was it not the French who went back to Vietnam after WWII n started bullying around the Vietnamese.

For God's sake after WWII the Vietnamese were American ally's.

Dont tell me that the americans r the only ones bitching n moaning.

Here in Canada the French cry about losing there culture, which is very stupid. Back in 1995 they had an Ice Storm in Quebec, and who saved them the Canadian Army n the American Army. Then a couple months after they had a referendum to separate with Canada.

When the War started in IRAQ, the French protesters had the nerve to desecrate graves of WWII soldiers in France. They had sprayed painted "DEath to Bush". What i find stupid about this is that the grave they did this is on was a Canadian soldier.

[Kriz]

Stop all this crap referring to world war 2. France and all other countries don't owe America, Brittain, Canade or Russia nothing no more.

You knew very well it would cost lives and you took the decision to help us, fine thanks for that but that doesn't mean we have to "swallow everything you give us" at this moment.

I have nothing to do with actions undertaken in the past and I certainly don't have to change my way of thinking because of them.

[warchild1/27scout]

i think budanski nailed it. the french can do or say anything they want but if they want to be our allies they can't intentionally undermine our national security and gather allies against us to do diplomatic war against us. and when they do undermine us they're going to have to pay the piper baby!they can't have it both ways like the saudis. they don't have any oil.lol

[ScoutRanger]

You knew very well it would cost lives and you took the decision to help us, fine thanks for that but that doesn't mean we have to "swallow everything you give us" at this moment.


Sure thing sweetie but that doesn't mean stabbing us in the back. Disagree sure, but don’t go gathering all the other school children against us.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

kris wrote
I have nothing to do with actions undertaken in the past and I certainly don't have to change my way of thinking because of them.

Your arrogance astounds me. So no matter how many die for you or your country, you owe them nothing not even gratitude?.

Robbo wrote
im sorry but ww2 was 60 odd years ago. you cannot sit here and tell me that because of actions taken 60 years ago the french are obligated to go along with everything the americans say or do. if you think they are then you are taking away frances right to be an independent nation.

So who covered Australias northern flank in the dark days of early 1942 when the bulk of your army was in the middle east?......france?.

The two of you talk about whining Americans but I reckon you'd be the first ones whining if your countries were threatened AGAIN and America didn't come to your rescue.
[/b]

[Kriz]

kris wrote
The two of you talk about whining Americans but I reckon you'd be the first ones whining if your countries were threatened AGAIN and America didn't come to your rescue.
[/b]

Not really, Belgium has been threatened by other countries for the last 2000 years and frankly i don't really cares whose in control, they are all corrupt anyway.
And by the way i did say thanks in my post for the sacrfice they made.

Ow and GoRanger just to let you know I personally was supportive of the iraqi war so please dont tell me I'm stabbing you in the back and gather school childern against you.

Best regards, Kriz

[budanski]

Theres an explanation for the "ungratefulness" and "anti-americanism" from our European breathens. The socialists who run Europe have taken root and are the very enemy we fought during the cold war. How are we to expect to be respected when it was the U.S. that brought them down in mother Russia?

[cut]

the most "ungrateful" and "anti-american" european leader is Chirac who is a right wing politian. It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..

[Vance]

It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..
:cantbeli:

[ScoutRanger]

[quote=Ngati Tumatuenga]kris wrote
Ow and GoRanger just to let you know I personally was supportive of the iraqi war so please dont tell me I'm stabbing you in the back and gather school childern against you.


Didn't say you did, I just said dont do it.

[budanski]

the most "ungrateful" and "anti-american" european leader is Chirac who is a right wing politian. It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..

Chirac is a Gaulist. Even more ungrateful.

[cut]

It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..
:cantbeli:

couldn't think of anything to say? ;)

[budanski]

The Frogs show such class, we can never compete (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,992329,00.html).

[Seiyuuki]

Lance Armstrong...one of the most underated athlete in the world. Got to have respect for a man who overcame cancer and went on to win the Tour de France over and over and over...and so on.

Read in Sport Illustrated that he originally was going to bike for the French, but then when they found out that he was diagnose with cancer, they dropped him from the team. He came back and bike for the U.S. and went on to win and win and win...and so on. I don't understand why, but apparently the French spectators would usually boos him as he passed by???

:cantbeli: That's probably another reason why the French dislike us...we been winning their bike race for the past four years!!!

[Seraphim]

Ya I was watching some of Tour De France and they all booed him. Eh he still won.

[Seraphim]

Also...like some of us already said on this thread. You do have a right to your opinion, but why would your government go out of its way to work against the US.

[erwan]

1 United Nations have mandated experts to search for wmd; in their *******, they said there is no proof of their existence; Powell said there were wrong and gave other proofs; but at the moment, you don't have find any wmd; if the UN experts had found wmd, france would have helped you.
2 Since you are not under UN control in Irak, you have no legitimity to be there ( i don't mean that your cause is wrong , i mean that you are acting out of the legal way); it's a reason why many irakis see you much as an occupation army
3 peace and law have just been restored in congo by an european expeditionary unit under UN control, and if the situation is not as complex in irak, it was not an easy mission due to multiethnic conflicts; the europeans ( not to say the mother ****ing fagot frogs euh well in fact the french) will leave the country in september; not sure GI's will be at home at the same date...

[budanski]

1. The job of the U.N. inspector was NOT there to search for weapons, but to verify what Iraq had claimed they had under U.N. Resolution 1441.

2.When has any country gone out to seek U.N. approval or what you called "legitimacy. After WW2, there have been some 200 conflicts worlwide and only 2 were OK'd by the U.N. Korea and Gulf War 1. Was Algeria, the Suez, Indochine or the Ivory Coast legitimate? Get off your f*cking high horse.

3. A quick round of applause for sending troops to the Congo. Perhaps France and its allies can rid the world of injustice so that peace loving leaders like Robert Mugabe and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can rule with an iron fist without threats from the evil Americans.

Where were your efforts in Bosnia? Last checked, our troops are still there.

[Trident-za]

From what Ive read I understand that the French Foreign Legion was involved in Bosnia - does the French government control them at all? (curious).

You are quite right about all those other wars not being sanctioned by the UN - and I think they were also considered "not quite legal". Wars happen, irrespective of their legality, however. Thats not the point, though. The Europeans want things done by the book/letter of the law etc. In their eyes, and technically correct, the invasion of Iraq was "illegal". Doesn't mean it was morally wrong, of course.

Whatever way you look at it, Chirac and the German dude (gorgotten his name) did what they felt was legally and morally right. Isn't that the role of any leader - to do what he/she feels is right for their country? Isn't that what Bush is doing?

I personally disagreed with the French approach, but to hate them for it is a bit childish.

[Trident-za]

1. The job of the U.N. inspector was NOT there to search for weapons, but to verify what Iraq had claimed they had under U.N. Resolution 1441.



Hmm.. this might be true, but it's certainly not how it came across in the media coverage. I seem to remember the UN inspection teams complaining that the US intelligence about WMD sites was not forthcoming. I also seem to remember various political figures, including Bush, Blair & Powell, saying that the war could be prevented: all Saddam had to do was admit he had weapons of mass destruction and leave the country.

The above things made me personally believe at the time that the UN inspectors where there to try find evidence of WMD, and that the primary reason for going to war was to do with WMD. The angle used by the media lead many people to believe this, and I would imagine a lot of them still do.

[budanski]

I personally disagreed with the French approach, but to hate them for it is a bit childish.

My dislike for Frogs predates Gulf War 2. We still remember whose side the Frogs took when Reagan sent strikes into Libya. We remember whose officers were passing secrets to the Serbs in the Baltics. Guess who opposed Gulf War 1? 'France wants a Europe/World whole and free - of America.' (http://www.msnbc.com/news/884682.asp?cp1=1)

[Seraphim]

Just curious...where did your avatar come from?

[budanski]

I did what everyone else on the web does. Highjacked it ;)

[usa320]

I too have respect for the majority of the french people. It is the french political agenda that angers me.

[REMOV]

I too have respect for the majority of the french people. It is the french political agenda that angers me.Hmm... boys, one thing - the "french political agenda" told people they want to listen. The French like Americans have strong imperial inclinations. And people from France had memories of past colonial glory (and still are involved in some African actions, spend money on unnecessary monuments of power such nuclear powered CVs etc.). No one likes rivals - regardless of fact that in reality France is not rival of the USA anymore ;)

[ComnGitMe]

We do not hate the french people just your policy of annoyance and complacency with tyrants not to mention your at times ungratefull attitude toward those who extend help to you. Also for the americans who do, that started more as a fact of the overly radical way in which some of your citizens protested the war whether you like it or not you need to realize america has sat by and watched and done as we were told for years trying to appease europe and then for us trying to appease everyone like you we got sucker punched and at that point we decided never again I mean I am the first to admit yes america is on the war path but the fact is countries like france and germany took more time to not rationalize but realize where we are coming from with our new foriegn policy of kick ass and **** names which can be better summed up with the comment made by a japanese commander during WW2 they have awakened a sleeping giant and his wrath will be great and severe

[budanski]

A quick summary for erwan:

You Frogs are the World’s Masters of Self-delusion
http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/france_the_lion.jpg

Lots of countries chose to stay home and not join us in our fight to end Saddam’s reign of terror. But America and Americans are singling out France for special retaliation. But retaliation for what? Not for staying home like so many other countries chose to. No, that’s not the reason. The reason for American anger and retaliation against France is very simple: France embarked on an open and concerted campaign of blocking America vis a vis Iraq in every possible manner.Consider the following widely publicized French actions:

The United Nations: France announces its intentions to veto – sight unseen – any further resolutions aimed at enforcing Resolution 1441. Now there’s a reasonable position.

Eastern Europe: French President Chirac has a hissy fit, threatens to block EU entry to a number of Eastern European countries because they sided with America on Iraq. He tells them “they missed a good opportunity to be quiet”. AMAZING! Only FRANCE gets to voice a view on Iraq?

Turkey: France threatens to block Turkey’s EU candidacy if Turkey permits America to use Turkish bases as part of any attacks on Iraq. As if the French are ever going to vote for Turkish entry into the EU...

What other country did these things?

Name five, other than France.

O.K, name FOUR other than France.

O.K., name THREE other than France.

O.K., name TWO other than France.

O.K., Name just ONE country other than France that engaged in these actions!

You can’t; because only FRANCE engaged in an active and concerted effort to block American choice of action with respect to Iraq. And that’s a LOT different that simply not agreeing with American actions and choosing to stay home. And THAT is why Americans are pissed at France. And THAT is why things are never going to be the same again between America and France. And THAT is why the next time France needs American help, the French should not be the least surprised when we don’t return their telephone calls.

Hope that clears it for you Frog.

[REMOV]

French President Chirac has a hissy fit, threatens to block EU entry to a number of Eastern European countries because they sided with America on Iraq. He tells them “they missed a good opportunity to be quiet”. Right, this words of French president pissed off lots of people here in Poland. The French lost many friends in East European countries. An ironic twist of fate, after IF operation, when France congratulated US president successful war, in widely read newspaper in Poland appeared a commentary: "France missed a opportunity to be quiet." ;)

[cut]

things are a bit one way around here, so I'm going to throw a few other points of view into the mix.

the american government has said it will not send any more american troops to iraq, but is asking for other countries to chip in. Sounds fair enough, but think of it this way:
The situation in iraq is hotting up, there is more and more gurilla action, the US hates above all else sustaining american casualties and now they ask for UN/international troops to come in and sacrifice their young men to finish a prodominently american war.

also americans especially on this board criticise other countries for coat holding. But as soon as european countries choose not to follow in american footseps they are criticised.

[He219]

cut wrote:

It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..
That must be an attempt at sarcasm! Do not equate patriotism with nationalism or anti-something-ism.

http://protestwarrior.com/images/posters/hey_france_for_website.gif

erwan wrote:

United Nations have mandated experts to search for wmd; in their *******, they said there is no proof of their existence
Saddam expelled UN weapons inspectors who were not able to return until an immediate threat of force was presented through a US military presence and the adoption of Resolution 1441. This got the ball rolling again. It was the UN itself that declared various amounts of 'missing' WMD materials in the first place. Iraq claimed to have unilaterally destroyed it's WMD stocks without monitors or records, a requirement of the verification process.


Since you are not under UN control in Irak, you have no legitimity to be there
The US is will never be under UN control. The US may participate in UN programs and efforts. The threat of military force were conditions granted through UN resolutions and in the Gulf War I ceasfire terms negotiated after the invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was to be disarmed of WMD and their delivery devices TWELVE YEARS EARLIER.


peace and law have just been restored in congo by an european expeditionary unit under UN control, and if the situation is not as complex in irak, it was not an easy mission due to multiethnic conflicts
Relative calm is the only thing restored to the Congo. The French represent the UN - but are not controled by it. Neither are Urugayan peacekeepers that have been there all along. The mission as a protective force is a lot less risky than the efforts of removing Saddam in Iraq, restoring order and establishing a representative government . The French chose not to fight in Iraq and led efforts to Subvert Regieme Change in Iraq using verifiable WMD as a necessary precursor. I doubt the French Government would have approved a use of force even at that point. It would probably have sought to continue Saddam's reign in Iraq to perpetuate it's military sales and oil interests.


REMOV wrote:

Right, this words of French president pissed off lots of people here in Poland. The French lost many friends in East European countries.
Yeah, especially in America.

[He219]

cut wrote:

and now they ask for UN/international troops to come in and sacrifice their young men to finish a prodominently american war
So the WMD issue makes this an American War? International support is to the benefit of the whole, especially the Iraqis. So was the removal of Saddam....

[ibstolidude]

ERWIN your comments on the lack of WMD in Iraq are wrong...
"1 United Nations have mandated experts to search for wmd; in their *******, they said there is no proof of their existence; Powell said there were wrong and gave other proofs; but at the moment, you don't have find any wmd; if the UN experts had found wmd, france would have helped you. "

Un security council 687, 1284 and 1441 are for the oversight of the disarmament and dismantling of the Iraqi regime...

By Hans Blix's on words given in text to the UN on 27 Jan 2003 - (these are excepts quotations taken in full)

"While Iraq claims — with little evidence — that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.
One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future."

"I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

Chemical Weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few [metric] tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq."

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax."

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

- I do not think there is a question of the whether or not Chem and Bio weapons exist/existed in Iraq(by their own admissions) - The destruction, documentation and disclosure of such said weapons was the purpose of the UNMOVIC teams. I believe the majority of the questions stem from (as some pointed out above)
- what exists from before 91?
- what if any has been acquired since 98 (inspections halted)?
- what efforts have been made to create new materials?
- what efforts have been made to weaponize?

- The UN has published the documentation that shows such weapons have existed and did exist prior to the ground offensive. They have also shown that discrepancies are apparent between the declared numbers of such materials and their destruction...BUT, the UNMOVIC reports do reflect that such discrepancies DO NOT mean the materials have been weaponized or are in sufficient quantities to do so, nor do they indicate further efforts have been proven that Iraq was seeking to expand their WMD programs.

[Seiyuuki]

If some people say what we did in Iraq is not morally wrong, then why is it illegal? Isn't laws are somewhat base on the principle of morality? If what Chirac did is morally right for wanting to pursue peace and avoid war, and what we did is morally right for removing an oppressive tyrant, then who's morally right? ...Can we have it both way?

So...who's here a Naturalist and who's here believe in the Meta-Physical?

[Trident-za]

If some people say what we did in Iraq is not morally wrong, then why is it illegal? Isn't laws are somewhat base on the principle of morality? If what Chirac did is morally right for wanting to pursue peace and avoid war, and what we did is morally right for removing an oppressive tyrant, then who's morally right? ...Can we have it both way?

So...who's here a Naturalist and who's here believe in the Meta-Physical?

Very interesting questions, but with no simple answers. Sometimes the law can be wrong (thats why laws change from time to time?), sometimes the way its interpreted is wrong. The law, in theory, has lots to do with morality - in practise it doesn't always work that way.

[cut]

cut wrote:
[quote]It's makes sense that more patriotic europeans are also more anti american if patriotic americans are anti european..
That must be an attempt at sarcasm! Do not equate patriotism with nationalism or anti-something-ism.

you obviously don't know the definition of nationalism, this website is full of conservative nationalist views, this doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's the dictionary description of this point of view.

[He219]

cut wrote:

you obviously don't know the definition of nationalism

na·tion·al·ism n.

Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism

Whatever, cut-meister!

[cut]

look up conservative nationalism!

[cut]

na·tion·al·ism n.

Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

although... where does patrotism disagree with any of these?

[budanski]

C'mon Cut! You can do it... Let me help you.:D

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/photos/brussels_sprout.jpg

[He219]

Cut, that last definition specifically applies to FRANCE.

1) Devotion to the culture and interests of one's nation. That one goes without saying. The United States is a melting pot of cultures and France resents love of US Pop Culture while it's own is being diluted.

2) The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently [of the United States] rather than collectively emphasizing national [French/EU] rather than international goals.
The Bush Administration stated all along that the removal of Saddam was in the interests of all, especially the Iraqis.

3) Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. France feels it's culture under siege from US Pop Culture and resents this bitterly.

Now this:


website is full of conservative nationalist views

Patriotism

patriotic a.
belonging to a fellow-countryman. Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country; zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilance.

This alone does not cause people to dislike the French......

[cut]

you could twist that to suit any country!

frnace is a lot more international thanseem to think.

the EU is not a nation it's an international organisation so by no means emphasizing national rather than international goals

european countries have been melting pots of various cultures for many centuries before the US existed.

and why do you consider france to be loosing it's culture and american to be a wonderful melting pot of cultures, when the situation is the same

[cut]

Patriotism

patriotic a.
belonging to a fellow-countryman. Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country; zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilance.

This alone does not cause people to dislike the French......[/quote]

it does if your country disagrees with france

[budanski]

european countries have been melting pots of various cultures for many centuries before the US existed.

Thats a bunch of hooey! You only have a bunch of countries next to one another. Only recently have you shared a common currency. You don't even share a common language. In the past, conflicts were settled by getting at each others throat. Have we forgotten?

[cut]

european countries have been melting pots of various cultures for many centuries before the US existed.

Thats a bunch of hooey! You only have a bunch of countries next to one another. Only recently have you shared a common currency. You don't even share a common language. In the past, conflicts were settled by getting at each others throat. Have we forgotten?

wooah! that is very ignorant of you. there is no such thing as true english, when I was still in secondary school we did a survey in the class of about 25 I was the only person in the class with a fully english family background.

there have been imigrants from the comonwealth/empire for centuries. and even more came to help rebuild after WWII. the culture is a mash of all sorts of countries.

For example the english that is spoken today is a mix of old english and danish, which dates back to when all the kingdoms in England but Wessex were invaded by Vikings.

for example the word "sick" comes from old english and "ill" comes from danish despite meaning the same thing both words are still used.

the DIFFERENT countries in Europe have each been their own melting pots of cultures, initially within europe and asia (celts, pikts anlges, saxons, francs, vikings, huns etc..) followed by mixing of english, italian, french, german russian, whatever. and in the last few centuries, there has been a lot of influence from colonies (in britain lots of indian, african, arab, chinese, etc.. in france mainly arab, african, and some asian..)

this to me is a melting pot of cultures, not hooey ;)

[Duke]

wooah! that is very ignorant of you. there is no such thing as true english, when I was still in secondary school we did a survey in the class of about 25 I was the only person in the class with a fully english family background.
Are you kidding me? Comparing a schoolboy's view of his class and the US demographics. How ignorant are you. The word melting pot is an American term. And using your Viking analogy, imagine now that WASP now coming to American and intermarrying for generations with africans, Native Americans, other europeans, asians in my case, etc etc. Since the Revolutionary War we are now in the eleventh generation. Now that's a melting pot. Furthermore, in the last two hundred years where have the immigrants gone in LARGE numbers certainly not the British Isles.

[He219]

wrong interpretation, cut.

melting pot
n.
A container in which a substance is melted.
A place where immigrants of different cultures or races form an integrated society: “Canadians... liked to think of their country as a mosaic rather than a melting pot” (Kenneth McNaught).


Note - INTEGRATED society. Elements in our melting pot actually get along and live amongst another.

Europe in contrast is blended by conquest and military subjugation of the past and by economic necessity in current times. Tell me Arabs in France live as equals amongst their French brethren. England has a diverse culture due to it's colonial past. There is a difference between a MOSAIC and a MELTING POT.

[cut]

have you ever been here Duke?

[cut]

Note - INTEGRATED society. Elements in our melting pot actually get along and live amongst another.

Europe in England has a diverse culture due to it's colonial past. There is a difference between a MOSAIC and a MELTING POT.

I only used the term MELTING POT for Britain because that is what it has been called. British indians are my brethren, they are not foreigner is my country they are british citizens therefore this IS a melting pot not a mosaic.

[Duke]

Yes, twice, but this is off the military subject. So I'm happy with my point and I'll end it here.

[cut]

was it ever a military subject?

[He219]

Cut (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/summer_of_violence/default.stm)

[Kriz]

He219, like there never were race riots in the USA :roll:

[cut]

He219 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2119943.stm)

[He219]

If you read the article you would have deduced the following:


The main Cantle report, commissioned by the Home Office, said people in Britain were leading "parallel" and "polarised" lives where people from different backgrounds did not mix.

Segregation, albeit self-segregation... will lead to more serious problems if it is not tackled

Oldham review
It called for a meaningful concept of citizenship which could include an oath of allegiance setting out "a clear primary loyalty to this nation".



The LA riots (I WAS THERE) was an occasion manipulated by opportunits and was certainly not a culture war.

Your link deduced the following:


In July 1991, an independent commission ordered to investigate the LAPD delivered a damning verdict.

Its report documented what it described as the systematic use of excessive force and institutionalised racism. The commission recommended the resignation of police chief Daryl Gates.


Are you able to differentiate between polarization and police abuse? Hardly a counterpoint to your MELTING POT argument...

;)
He219

[cut]

I live in britain, why are you telling me you know what it's like here better than me?

[He219]

Conversely, how can you tell me that Europe is a MELTING POT as much as the US is?

[cut]

I'm saying Britain or for example france are melting pots of cultures, it doesn't have to include the US.

[Seiyuuki]

Is there a Chinatown in Britain and France?

[cut]

there one in london I'm not sure about paris

http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~ttwong/photo/uk1/uk06.jpg

[Seiyuuki]

woot woot woot COOL!!!

Then frankly I don't care what anybody else got to say, I'm Asian and I'm going to allow myself to be partial for now. As long as they got a Chinatown, I say they're a melting pot.

[cut]

yes there's a chinatown in Paris too.

the Chinatown in London is famous it's near Leicester Square which is where all the movie premieres, clubs and bars are.

[cut]

YES (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3020009.stm)

this is the equivalent of colin powell in britain, the international development secratary (the last one resigned over the war)

and she's even a Baroness, convinced yet?

[cut]

He219, where did the question go?

[He219]

cut wrote:

european countries have been melting pots of various cultures for many centuries before the US existed.

That would be a MOSAIC of cultures in Europe over the centuries.


Melting pot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

1. A container where substances are melted.

2. A term in social science and political science that describes a strategy to integrate and assimilate immigrants into mainstream society. The different cultures and values melt together to an integrated society.

The melting pot approach can result in a homogenous society with a strong common sense. However, problems can arise with this approach: Maintaining the own distinct culture by individuals is often under social pressure to assimilate into society. Also, the melting pot approach runs into problems in the case of groups of people who are not willing to integrate into mainstream society.

A typical example of a melting pot is the integration strategy of the United States of America.

A competing approach is multiculturalism. This approach is to some extent used in Canada.

The metaphor of the melting pot comes from Englishman Israel Zangwill's play The Melting Pot, which was first performed in Washington in 1908.


See the difference? France has a huge problem (not my opinion) in reasserting it's own historically French culture while assimilating huge foreign elements into an ever changing national identity. Simultaneously they see US Culture as well as Globalism as a threat to the French way of life. Being American isn't a matter of continually redefining national identity, but is an acceptance of traditional American values inherent in our way of life and gained through assimilation and naturalization. We become a Melting Pot by accepting American Values in lieu of a Mosaic of separate national and ethnic identities living uder the same passport.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8268

[budanski]

In the melting-pot model, immigrants were encouraged to completely discard the cultural heritage they brought with them. In the mosaic model, people of different backgrounds can fit together without losing their original identity.

I do not see the EU as melting pot. Each EU state is distinctly individual and none are discarding their culture for the greater good of the superstate. I dont have to live in Europe to know this.

[cut]

DON'T QUOTE FRONTPAGE! that's like digging out some marxist rag to proove a point.

The Wikipedea call britain mosaic, of cultures.

in britain, the new imigrants are encouraged to become british but that doesn't, the same as in america.

true britain is absorbing other cultures, but then it is the US also.

take a look at the whitehouse website, it offers a version in spannish.

[cut]

I do not see the EU as melting pot. Each EU state is distinctly individual and none are discarding their culture for the greater good of the superstate. I dont have to live in Europe to know this.

from the start I have been referring to the individual countries, the EU is an international organisation not a state!

[budanski]

from the start I have been referring to the individual countries, the EU is an international organisation not a state!

From what I'm getting at, its wanting to be a state. Whats with the constitution then?

[He219]

http://www.metrospy.com/pictures/225_trash_america.gif

Which of the following is the best classification of the image:

1) Nationalism
2) Patriotism
3) Conservatism
4) None of the Above - It's Satire

;)
He219

[cut]

it's a draft constitution, it may become a superstate but it's no where near right now. The EU is not a melting pot, britain is.

[cut]

http://www.metrospy.com/pictures/225_trash_america.gif

Which of the following is the best classification of the image:

1) Nationalism
2) Patriotism
3) Conservatism
4) None of the Above - It's Satire

;)
He219

good job we still use the £ then. ;)

[warchild1/27scout]

france i'm sure will be the first country to give up(surrender) to the eu. :lol:

[budanski]

Bomb la France (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/out_there/documents/02906110.htm)
With Iraq defeated, the allies need to find a more suitable target. Did someone say bonjour?

THIS ARTICLE IS MEANT FOR HUMOR ONLY! UNLESS YOUR FRENCH.

[cut]

rofl

I thought the French fought us brits during the american civil war, or is he reffering to some other civil war?

[Seiyuuki]

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/out_there/documents/02906110.htm[/url]]We’ll probably get some oil out of the Iraq deal. But just imagine what we get if we liberate France: unlimited supplies of wine and Champagne, the French Riviera, some incredibly good bread, a bunch of great restaurants, an efficient wait staff, the Louvre, Paris, the Alps, and a whole bunch of hot French babes.

If we play it the right way, we could basically supply pastry chefs and au pairs to the entire Midwest. We could put Disney in charge of running the country and charge admission to anyone who wanted to visit. That alone would take care of our budget deficit.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[martinexsquaddie]

Sorry if anyones going to invade France its the Brits
Its our traditional pastime :lol:
Anyway tonys looking a bit low in the Polls
New policy war with france it will be a sure fire winner
anyway you already have a FOB Eurodisney :lol:

[He219]

I would like the French better if they were cleaner

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3087785.stm

[California Joe]

JJ French was the lead guitarist for Twisted Sister. Just sayin'

[budanski]

Even the Germans are beginning to see the light......




Germany Makes a Choice, And It Isn't France

The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
GEORGE MELLOAN


German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a leftist hell-raiser in his youth but today a popular politician, last week visited Washington and offered his views on what the future world order should be. French President Jacques Chirac must have been stunned. The message was that Germany has its own ideas about international politics, and they are precisely the opposite of Mr. Chirac's grand vision of a united Europe that would become a rival to the U.S. for global power.

Mr. Fischer, who met with Vice President **** Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, said that Germany does not want to be a rival to the U.S. He asserted that Europe can only be strong in cooperation with the U.S., not as a competitor.

By contrast, Mr. Chirac, who can't rid himself of the aspirations to "glory" that Charles de Gaulle implanted in the French psyche in the 1960s, wants the Atlantic alliance to disappear. When German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder employed anti-Americanism in a close campaign for re-election last year, Mr. Chirac thought he saw an opportunity achieve his vision of Europe as a world power. He set about to prove France's political strength by trying to undermine the U.S.-British endeavor to remove Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. He imagined that a Europe led by Germany and France -- but mostly France -- was finally taking shape.

He was dead wrong. Every member and candidate member of the European Union other than Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg made it clear that they were siding with the Americans. Since Belgium and Luxembourg are minor players, for all practical purposes it only remained to be seen how long Germany would be willing to serve as France's disciple.

Germany has its share of left-wing enemies of the Bush administration, but Germans as a whole are not fond of being seen by the world as lackeys. For all its accomplishments, the EU has not yet succeeded in burying those old enmities in the hearts and minds of the French and German peoples. Germany, although currently perched on the brink of a recession, still has the world's third largest economy, and dwarfs France in population. Mr. Schroeder's popularity with German voters nose-dived soon after his re-election, in part because of his failures at economic reform but also because of his willingness to play the junior partner in the Franco-German alliance.

That's where Mr. Fischer entered the picture. The foreign minister probably had a greater role in getting the chancellor re-elected than the chancellor's anti-Bush remarks. He conducted an effective whistle-stop campaign on behalf of Mr. Schroeder, swaying a skeptical German public just enough to allow the chancellor to eke out a victory. His Green party, a member of the ruling coalition, tipped the electoral balance in the chancellor's favor.

After the U.S. and Britain launched their attack on Saddam, the antiwar chattering classes gave the world the impression that Europe was seized by a frenzy of anti-Americanism. This was much exaggerated and at any rate, the brighter politicians of Europe soon realized that France and Germany were fated to lose more than they gained from creating this impression. The reaction of Americans to the stories of European hatred was not a friendly one and the U.S. is a big market for products made by German and French workers. French wine producers were already suffering from the more effective competition from lower-cost producers in places like Australia and Chile.

Fortunately for Germany, Mr. Fischer is one of the country's brighter politicians. He soon began to edge Germany back into the good graces of the Bush administration. Germany made it clear that it was not about to abandon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had protected West Germany from the threat of a Soviet attack during the long Cold War. Germany humored France by joining in the creation of a EU "rapid reaction" force which would in theory rival NATO someday. But this was largely a paper exercise because neither France nor Germany, under EU budget restrictions, has the money to build up anything other than a symbolic military unit, and they won't get much help from other NATO members. Europe is still dependent on NATO for protection against predators like Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Fischer made the German position clear in his visits with American leaders and his TV interviews last week. Berlin made a special point of giving the American press the word that the foreign minister would say some important things during his visit. He of course did so, although the news that Germany had dumped France and had gone over to the Americans was drowned out by other reportage. It couldn't compete with the partisan claims that George W. Bush and England's Tony Blair had misled the world about the quality of intelligence reports on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Yet in terms of the future relationship between Europe and the U.S. it was far more important.

What it means is that so far as Europe is concerned, it is now France against the rest, or more precisely, the rest against France. Mr. Chirac rolled the dice in a big gamble against the U.S. and he came up snake eyes. Germany is not buying his idea of a multipolar world consisting of the U.S., Europe, Russia and China. In the minds of thoughtful leaders, that sounds a bit too much like the world of the 1930s, in which big-power competition eventually became a big-power-fostered world war, destroying millions of lives and segueing into the Cold War that threatened even greater destruction with nuclear weapons. The best protection against the return of such a dangerous world is a firm alliance between the United States and Europe, an alliance that already exists and has served both Europe and the U.S. well for decades.

The preservation of that alliance, bound together by the North Atlantic treaty, is in the best interests of Americans and Germans, not to mention the wider world. The idea that an egocentric French politician would put his ambitions ahead of this vast goal is appalling. Apparently, Mr. Fischer thinks so too, or he wouldn't have made his historic trip to Washington.

[ESCOBAR]

TARBANAK

[California Joe]

Did you mean "Tabernac"?

[Vance]

He's using ebonics. rofl

[cut]

Even the Germans are beginning to see the light......




Germany Makes a Choice, And It Isn't France

The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
GEORGE MELLOAN


German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a leftist hell-raiser in his youth but today a popular politician, last week visited Washington and offered his views on what the future world order should be. French President Jacques Chirac must have been stunned. The message was that Germany has its own ideas about international politics, and they are precisely the opposite of Mr. Chirac's grand vision of a united Europe that would become a rival to the U.S. for global power.

Mr. Fischer, who met with Vice President **** Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, said that Germany does not want to be a rival to the U.S. He asserted that Europe can only be strong in cooperation with the U.S., not as a competitor.

By contrast, Mr. Chirac, who can't rid himself of the aspirations to "glory" that Charles de Gaulle implanted in the French psyche in the 1960s, wants the Atlantic alliance to disappear. When German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder employed anti-Americanism in a close campaign for re-election last year, Mr. Chirac thought he saw an opportunity achieve his vision of Europe as a world power. He set about to prove France's political strength by trying to undermine the U.S.-British endeavor to remove Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. He imagined that a Europe led by Germany and France -- but mostly France -- was finally taking shape.

He was dead wrong. Every member and candidate member of the European Union other than Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg made it clear that they were siding with the Americans. Since Belgium and Luxembourg are minor players, for all practical purposes it only remained to be seen how long Germany would be willing to serve as France's disciple.

Germany has its share of left-wing enemies of the Bush administration, but Germans as a whole are not fond of being seen by the world as lackeys. For all its accomplishments, the EU has not yet succeeded in burying those old enmities in the hearts and minds of the French and German peoples. Germany, although currently perched on the brink of a recession, still has the world's third largest economy, and dwarfs France in population. Mr. Schroeder's popularity with German voters nose-dived soon after his re-election, in part because of his failures at economic reform but also because of his willingness to play the junior partner in the Franco-German alliance.

That's where Mr. Fischer entered the picture. The foreign minister probably had a greater role in getting the chancellor re-elected than the chancellor's anti-Bush remarks. He conducted an effective whistle-stop campaign on behalf of Mr. Schroeder, swaying a skeptical German public just enough to allow the chancellor to eke out a victory. His Green party, a member of the ruling coalition, tipped the electoral balance in the chancellor's favor.

After the U.S. and Britain launched their attack on Saddam, the antiwar chattering classes gave the world the impression that Europe was seized by a frenzy of anti-Americanism. This was much exaggerated and at any rate, the brighter politicians of Europe soon realized that France and Germany were fated to lose more than they gained from creating this impression. The reaction of Americans to the stories of European hatred was not a friendly one and the U.S. is a big market for products made by German and French workers. French wine producers were already suffering from the more effective competition from lower-cost producers in places like Australia and Chile.

Fortunately for Germany, Mr. Fischer is one of the country's brighter politicians. He soon began to edge Germany back into the good graces of the Bush administration. Germany made it clear that it was not about to abandon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had protected West Germany from the threat of a Soviet attack during the long Cold War. Germany humored France by joining in the creation of a EU "rapid reaction" force which would in theory rival NATO someday. But this was largely a paper exercise because neither France nor Germany, under EU budget restrictions, has the money to build up anything other than a symbolic military unit, and they won't get much help from other NATO members. Europe is still dependent on NATO for protection against predators like Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Fischer made the German position clear in his visits with American leaders and his TV interviews last week. Berlin made a special point of giving the American press the word that the foreign minister would say some important things during his visit. He of course did so, although the news that Germany had dumped France and had gone over to the Americans was drowned out by other reportage. It couldn't compete with the partisan claims that George W. Bush and England's Tony Blair had misled the world about the quality of intelligence reports on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Yet in terms of the future relationship between Europe and the U.S. it was far more important.

What it means is that so far as Europe is concerned, it is now France against the rest, or more precisely, the rest against France. Mr. Chirac rolled the dice in a big gamble against the U.S. and he came up snake eyes. Germany is not buying his idea of a multipolar world consisting of the U.S., Europe, Russia and China. In the minds of thoughtful leaders, that sounds a bit too much like the world of the 1930s, in which big-power competition eventually became a big-power-fostered world war, destroying millions of lives and segueing into the Cold War that threatened even greater destruction with nuclear weapons. The best protection against the return of such a dangerous world is a firm alliance between the United States and Europe, an alliance that already exists and has served both Europe and the U.S. well for decades.

The preservation of that alliance, bound together by the North Atlantic treaty, is in the best interests of Americans and Germans, not to mention the wider world. The idea that an egocentric French politician would put his ambitions ahead of this vast goal is appalling. Apparently, Mr. Fischer thinks so too, or he wouldn't have made his historic trip to Washington.


GEORGE MELLOAN sucking up to american readers

despite being british I think that the whole american "france wants to be in control of europe- and the world" idea can't be anything but BS

[He219]

anything but

Nice cut!

[cut]

thank god for the edit button... I should really read what I type..

[He219]

Rats!

[theg]

Same as Ranger, here. I have no problem with French people at all. I dislike, as he said, the French government's political agenda.

And again, don't generalize France-haters as Americans. On another forum, somebody posted a thread making fun of the French as a joke, and after a couple replies a French person started yelling at all the "Yankees" who thought it was funny. Of course, he didn't realize that everyone who had replied before him was from the UK or Australia.turkey is big everytime

[szr]

I just read every post in this thread before I realized it's almost 2 years old. That's 15 minutes of my life that I want back.
:oops: :cantbeli:

[FallenAngel]

I just read every post in this thread before I realized it's almost 2 years old. That's 15 minutes of my life that I want back.
:oops: :cantbeli:

rofl

[JTAR7242]

I just read every post in this thread before I realized it's almost 2 years old. That's 15 minutes of my life that I want back.
:oops: :cantbeli:
rofl
Is it really the kind of thread that doesn't deserve to be re-examined every once in a while? ;)

[perdurabo]

i don't hate french and i'm Pole but i dislike french politics strongly. In 90' when some anti-jewish **** got 0.1% of votes in Poland some big fish from france come here to teach us how to threat anti-semites but in the same time LePen had 15%of votes in france, later chirac started to yaping how anti EU we are, and if we don't agree on constitution he will create europe of two speeds but now we have GDP grow above 4% France has less than 1% French population will prabably reject EUconstitution while Poles will say yes in referendum and there is much more like taking away jobs while on every 1 job taken by Pole from french(or other old eu citizen) there is more than 4 taken by chinese worker but still Poles are the ones that take jobs from poor French :roll:

[Caesar]

Here in Canada the French cry about losing there culture, which is very stupid. Back in 1995 they had an Ice Storm in Quebec, and who saved them the Canadian Army n the American Army. Then a couple months after they had a referendum to separate with Canada.

Losing a culture is not something stupid to cry about. You certainly cannot understand since English Canadian have American culture as theirs.

And the Ice Storm occured in 1998. Never heard about the American army being sent back then.

Please, don't post again ****head.

[roland]

I just read every post in this thread before I realized it's almost 2 years old. That's 15 minutes of my life that I want back.
:oops: :cantbeli:

Ah that was the good old time when the French hater didn't look like retarded morons ... p-)

[The Chap]

My only problem with the french is that I can smell them from here!. Nah seriously the people in Paris were complete arseholes, but the people in the south were very nice.

[Kilgor]

I think john Mc Cain got it right when he said.

"France is like an aging actress of the 1940's. She's still dining out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it. "


France knows now it can be a major world player in the gaulist dream, so now it trys to undermine the US in the way the old warsaw pact used to. Its also so paranoid and precious about protecting its culture, to the point of embarrisment.

[roland]

France knows now it can be a major world player in the gaulist dream, so now it trys to undermine the US in the way the old warsaw pact used to.

rofl
:cantbeli: good boy, you're not smart but you know your lesson well.

Typical idiotic statement, one of the favourite theme of the "official propaganda" you can find on countries under Murdoch's influence: Australia, USA, Israel and to a lesser extand UK.
I conclude that the quantity of irrational idiots have reached a critical mass in those countries.

[raptor2]

erwan, generally I agree with GoRanger. As for your points:


people in french never say such things about american in our country
I totally disagree.


can you explain me the difference , for you, between vassal and allied
As an ally France certainly can disagree, but not aid the enemy by developing alliances countering US action and interests. The definition for vassal that applies is that France hates the idea of being subordinate to or dependent upon the US.


why are you wasting so much of your precious time with us
Good question. We're just having a little fun.


french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia
Thanks. How about sending troops to Iraq for humanitarian and peacekeeping reasons?

Hate is a strong word. Americans are hugely diappointed at the French Government as an 'ally'.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/index.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/chirac_putin_schroeder_stooges.jpg

let us say that frenchs like to be freed and protected by americans, and later, like to feel themselves so indipendent or big. Without US blood, today they could be no France, and this does not mean a bad thing, but now they are enmies of america, till the next time that US will save their ass!

[Atlantic Friend]

Is there a Chinatown in Britain and France?

Yes, in the 13th district of Paris there's a Chinatown - and Chinatowns are growing here, with Beijing's economic impetus.

[Atlantic Friend]

france i'm sure will be the first country to give up(surrender) to the eu. :lol:

It's like saying Virginia surrendered to the United States...

[Atlantic Friend]

rofl

I thought the French fought us brits during the american civil war, or is he reffering to some other civil war?

When I read the forum threads, I sometimes think we should have struck a deal with you... :roll:

[Atlantic Friend]

let us say that frenchs like to be freed and protected by americans, and later, like to feel themselves so indipendent or big. Without US blood, today they could be no France, and this does not mean a bad thing, but now they are enmies of america, till the next time that US will save their ass!

Let's also say that without French blood, today there could not be no United States. So before we go on calling each other names, doubt each other's hygiene and moral fiber, let's remember that we DO have a long history of hanging together. Here's a short list of occasions where our troops either fought or were deployed together against common foes :

- American Independence War, 1770s
- Chinese Boxer Revolt, 1900
- WW1, 1914-1918
- WW2, 1941-1945
- Berlin Crisis, 1948
- Korean War, 1950-1953
- Cuban Missile crisis, 1962
- Lebanon, 1983
- Gulf War 1, 1990-1991
- Somalia, 1993
- Ex-Yugoslavia, 1995-1999
- Afghanistan, 2001-present
- Haiti, 2003-present

[Ratman]

erwan, generally I agree with GoRanger. As for your points:


people in french never say such things about american in our country
I totally disagree.


can you explain me the difference , for you, between vassal and allied
As an ally France certainly can disagree, but not aid the enemy by developing alliances countering US action and interests. The definition for vassal that applies is that France hates the idea of being subordinate to or dependent upon the US.


why are you wasting so much of your precious time with us
Good question. We're just having a little fun.


french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia
Thanks. How about sending troops to Iraq for humanitarian and peacekeeping reasons?

Hate is a strong word. Americans are hugely diappointed at the French Government as an 'ally'.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/index.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/chirac_putin_schroeder_stooges.jpg

I agree with He219's review here.

And I'd like to add that I am more disappointed with the current US administration than the French one (as lame as it is), but it is natural that I am more concerned with my own country's affairs.

[sp2c]

let us say that frenchs like to be freed and protected by americans, and later, like to feel themselves so indipendent or big. Without US blood, today they could be no France, and this does not mean a bad thing, but now they are enmies of america, till the next time that US will save their ass!

Let's also say that without French blood, today there could not be no United States. So before we go on calling each other names, doubt each other's hygiene and moral fiber, let's remember that we DO have a long history of hanging together. Here's a short list of occasions where our troops either fought or were deployed together against common foes :

- American Independence War, 1770s
- Chinese Boxer Revolt, 1900
- WW1, 1914-1918
- WW2, 1941-1945
- Berlin Crisis, 1948
- Korean War, 1950-1953
- Cuban Missile crisis, 1962
- Lebanon, 1983
- Gulf War 1, 1990-1991
- Somalia, 1993
- Ex-Yugoslavia, 1995-1999
- Afghanistan, 2001-present
- Haiti, 2003-present

didn't you ally with the Brits during one of the Anglo-Dutch wars as well?

[roland]

let us say that frenchs like to be freed and protected by americans, and later, like to feel themselves so indipendent or big. Without US blood, today they could be no France, and this does not mean a bad thing, but now they are enmies of america, till the next time that US will save their ass!

LOL. This one is an other typical brainwashed moron theme.
Very difficult to answer without giving the impression you're a ungratefull @ss hole.
So you think the USA entered in the war for French's nice eyes. If yes you're really an idiot and don't know how thing work let me tell you.
History in US's classroom is more something to make you feel good and sleep well than something scientific you know ?
The USA was part of a coalition that defeated Nazi Germany. This coalition included Russia, UK and Comonwealth, USA .. and Free French (the one that notably punctured the Gustav line near Monte cassino, took Marseille and Toulon and contributed to 20% of the troops that invaded Germany, west front)
When the Americans entered in the war, France was already invaded, the Brits had won the England battle and were kicking the German's @ss in north Africa and the Germans had already broke there teeth in Stalingrad.
Good timing, but nevertheless, in the West front the American did a fantastic job and well deserve all the credit and the prestige they got.
But lets not over do it will you ? you're not forced to remind us your great contribution on each thread where we don't agree and on our coutries level, each time there is a desagreement, be it on agricultural policy. As if we are going to pay back a blood debt with carrots or potatoes :roll:
That is most unpolite to remind a honor debt don't you know that ? that is NOT something the Brits, the Africans that fought bravely for France or the Russians do !

[roland]

double post sorry

[sp2c]

The USA was part of a coalition that defeated Nazi Germany. This coalition included Russia, UK and Comonwealth, USA .. and Free French (the one that notably punctured the Gustav line near Monte cassino, took Marseille and Toulon and contributed to 20% of the troops that invaded Germany)

you forgot about Poland ... and Holland and Belgium and Australia and New Zealand etc. etc. etc.

and the correct term is Alliance :)

[szr]

france i'm sure will be the first country to give up(surrender) to the eu. :lol:

It's like saying Virginia surrendered to the United States...
http://www.nps.gov/apco/Rocco%20Surrender.jpg
On April 9, 1865 after four years of Civil War, approximately 630,000 deaths and over 1 million casualties, General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, at the home of Wilmer and Virginia McLean in the town of Appomattox Court House , Virginia.

[Atlantic Friend]

let us say that frenchs like to be freed and protected by americans, and later, like to feel themselves so indipendent or big. Without US blood, today they could be no France, and this does not mean a bad thing, but now they are enmies of america, till the next time that US will save their ass!

Let's also say that without French blood, today there could not be no United States. So before we go on calling each other names, doubt each other's hygiene and moral fiber, let's remember that we DO have a long history of hanging together. Here's a short list of occasions where our troops either fought or were deployed together against common foes :

- American Independence War, 1770s
- Chinese Boxer Revolt, 1900
- WW1, 1914-1918
- WW2, 1941-1945
- Berlin Crisis, 1948
- Korean War, 1950-1953
- Cuban Missile crisis, 1962
- Lebanon, 1983
- Gulf War 1, 1990-1991
- Somalia, 1993
- Ex-Yugoslavia, 1995-1999
- Afghanistan, 2001-present
- Haiti, 2003-present

didn't you ally with the Brits during one of the Anglo-Dutch wars as well?

I'll have to go check ! Allying ourselves with Great Britain is a rather recent trend, but one we've followed assiduously.

[roland]

you forgot about Poland ... and Holland and Belgium and Australia and New Zealand etc. etc. etc.

and the correct term is Alliance :)

Correct but I wanted to make it short and simple for retard. Well Australia and New Zealand are part of Comonwealth aren't they ?

[toki]

Even the Germans are beginning to see the light......




Germany Makes a Choice, And It Isn't France

The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
GEORGE MELLOAN


... Schroeder's popularity with German voters nose-dived soon after his re-election, in part because of his failures at economic reform but also because of his willingness to play the junior partner in the Franco-German alliance.

...This was much exaggerated and at any rate, the brighter politicians of Europe soon realized that France and Germany were fated to lose more than they gained from creating this impression. The reaction of Americans to the stories of European hatred was not a friendly one and the U.S. is a big market for products made by German and French workers. French wine producers were already suffering from the more effective competition from lower-cost producers in places like Australia and Chile.

...The preservation of that alliance, bound together by the North Atlantic treaty, is in the best interests of Americans and Germans, not to mention the wider world. The idea that an egocentric French politician would put his ambitions ahead of this vast goal is appalling. Apparently, Mr. Fischer thinks so too, or he wouldn't have made his historic trip to Washington.

This aricle is biased. The reason Schroeders popularity took a nose dive was absolutely about inner politics and struggling to solve the economic crisis and high unemployment. Nobody hated Schroeder because he was the "junior partner of france". Because nobody in germany feels like "junior" to france. Even conservatives in germany oppose many political agendas of the americans.

Further the article tells that the french/german hatred was followed by the american unwillingles to buy french german products. True only in one way: That hatred actually didn't exist. The stories of european hatred are what they're supposed to be: STORIES. American politicians just helped to put oil in thee flame buy statements of "old europe". The american media just helped to put pressure on europe by telling not to buy franco/german products. It was an political instrument. Tell people the "frogs" hate us and they will stop buying wine. As easy as this.

At the end the article wants to stick america and germany together excluding france as egocentric. Quote: "Apparently, Mr. Fischer thinks so too, or he wouldn't have made his historic trip to Washington"

"or he wouldn't" Yes the author knows that this meeting is more important for germany then their relations to their next neighbour.

even the germans see the light. :roll: ...because we're blind.
Sorry dude, but "Jesusland" and your regular use of the word "frogs" says it all.

[sp2c]

I'll have to go check ! Allying ourselves with Great Britain is a rather recent trend, but one we've followed assiduously.

it was during the third anglo-Dutch war, the treaty of Dover was signed in 1670 and it meant that if either country was to attack Holland the other one had to pitch in






Correct but I wanted to make it short and simple for retard. Well Australia and New Zealand are part of Comonwealth aren't they ?
well when you're right, you're right ... right?

:)

[roland]

Correct but I wanted to make it short and simple for retard. Well Australia and New Zealand are part of Comonwealth aren't they ?
well when you're right, you're right ... right?

:)

right ;)
well of course when I was speaking of retards I was NOT thinking of you but instead of the poor brainwashed fascist redneck bigots that put shame on there country on international forums. :fork:

[sp2c]

right ;)
well of course when I was speaking of retards I was NOT thinking of you but instead of the poor brainwashed fascist redneck bigots that put shame on there country on international forums. :fork:

wasted effort.

it's not like these clowns use facts to write up their bull**** anyways

[UoUo]

*Don't forget france invade Sinai during 1956 allied with Israel and Britian.*

(does the UN gave it's green light for that?).

[Atlantic Friend]

I'll have to go check ! Allying ourselves with Great Britain is a rather recent trend, but one we've followed assiduously.

it was during the third anglo-Dutch war, the treaty of Dover was signed in 1670 and it meant that if either country was to attack Holland the other one had to pitch in

It was at a time when the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, correct ? Both France and England had axes to grind with Spain then.

[Atlantic Friend]

*Don't forget france invade Sinai during 1956 allied with Israel and Britian.*

(does the UN gave it's green light for that?).

Nope. Both nations were threatened by the USSR, the USA stated that they would not help either country in case of a Soviet attack, and the US voted against France and England in the UN Security Council. I think the US voted UN resolutions against France and England when both nations were fighting colonial wars against Soviet-backed rebels, too.

[BlackRain]

Since I'm french and working for the army, i have a few questions for american, which are most part of this forum
1 Did you realize that if some of your posts are really full of hate towards french, people in french never say such things about american in our country; we are only wondering if the pax americana is always the only solution to resolve international problems, but never in such violent way

One must be deaf not to hear the hateful anti-american things coming out of French citizens.

2 can you explain me the difference , for you, between vassal and allied

France is neither a vassal or ally of the USA.

3 if we are so weak, insignifiant and ridiculous, why are you wasting so much of your precious time with us ( for example writing posts like: f*** you mother f*** **** frog faggot in the ass)

France aids enemies of the USA both politically and financially (examples Saddam, Iran). That is potentially harmful to our national security.

4 french special forces and paratroopers have helped about two hundred americans ( and other people) to escape from ivory coast and Liberia; i can say i'm proud of it; but since you seem to hate french, must i deduce that it's a shame for you and that you would prefer, for example, brits to do the job ( sure they'd done it right)

I wonder why France had to assist the USA in 'helping' American's in Ivory Coast?

Could it be Frances disastrous colonial foreign policy decisions that put American citizens lives at risk in the first place.

[Atlantic Friend]

france i'm sure will be the first country to give up(surrender) to the eu. :lol:

It's like saying Virginia surrendered to the United States...
http://www.nps.gov/apco/Rocco%20Surrender.jpg
On April 9, 1865 after four years of Civil War, approximately 630,000 deaths and over 1 million casualties, General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, at the home of Wilmer and Virginia McLean in the town of Appomattox Court House , Virginia.

Oops ! I meant "at the creation of the United States", but you definitely have a point here.

[BlackRain]

Let's also say that without French blood, today there could not be no United States. So before we go on calling each other names, doubt each other's hygiene and moral fiber, let's remember that we DO have a long history of hanging together. Here's a short list of occasions where our troops either fought or were deployed together against common foes :

- American Independence War, 1770s
- Chinese Boxer Revolt, 1900
- WW1, 1914-1918
- WW2, 1941-1945
- Berlin Crisis, 1948
- Korean War, 1950-1953
- Cuban Missile crisis, 1962
- Lebanon, 1983
- Gulf War 1, 1990-1991
- Somalia, 1993
- Ex-Yugoslavia, 1995-1999
- Afghanistan, 2001-present
- Haiti, 2003-present

You forgot the Quasi War where France was at war with the USA. And, the US Civil War, where France sided with the Rebel South against our Union. And, Operation Iraqi Freedom, where France sided with keeping Saddam in power.

[sp2c]

I'll have to go check ! Allying ourselves with Great Britain is a rather recent trend, but one we've followed assiduously.

it was during the third anglo-Dutch war, the treaty of Dover was signed in 1670 and it meant that if either country was to attack Holland the other one had to pitch in

It was at a time when the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, correct ? Both France and England had axes to grind with Spain then.

no we'd kicked them out by 1648

during the third Dutch/Anglo war some German states, the UK and Franch ganged up on us for different reasons (brittish wanted to rule the waves, French wanted more land and the germans were ... well ... germans don't really need a reason to invade anyone ;))

[sp2c]

You forgot the Quasi War where France was at war with the USA. And, the US Civil War, where France sided with the Rebel South against our Union. And, Operation Iraqi Freedom, where France sided with keeping Saddam in power.
the French sided with Saddam??

must've been on the left flank with M1A2SU then because I never heard of that

[shrek]

don't have time to read it all but I got a good laugh at the statement that nothing negative is ever said about the United States or Americans in France. Give me a break!


I give each individual man that I meet the same chance that I gave the last; no prejudice, no bias. I have met and worked with French people, and for the most part have had a positive experience. But to act as if there is no ridicule of the US in France is just a little hard to swallow and very naive. Frances record with the United States is a poor one, there's no disputing that, and until that improves, which will take decades, the tension will continue!

[Atlantic Friend]

Let's also say that without French blood, today there could not be no United States. So before we go on calling each other names, doubt each other's hygiene and moral fiber, let's remember that we DO have a long history of hanging together. Here's a short list of occasions where our troops either fought or were deployed together against common foes :

- American Independence War, 1770s
- Chinese Boxer Revolt, 1900
- WW1, 1914-1918
- WW2, 1941-1945
- Berlin Crisis, 1948
- Korean War, 1950-1953
- Cuban Missile crisis, 1962
- Lebanon, 1983
- Gulf War 1, 1990-1991
- Somalia, 1993
- Ex-Yugoslavia, 1995-1999
- Afghanistan, 2001-present
- Haiti, 2003-present

You forgot the Quasi War where France was at war with the USA. And, the US Civil War, where France sided with the Rebel South against our Union. And, Operation Iraqi Freedom, where France sided with keeping Saddam in power.

The quasi-war : er, nope, we weren't at war. There were tensions, severe tensions indeed, but we weren't at war.

The Civil War : Nope, France did not "side with" the South. If we had you would have seen French-made guns, French ships, French troops, and first and foremost we would have granted official recognition to the Confederates).

Iraqi Freedom : Same thing. If France had "sided with" Saddam, we would have provided intel, weapons, and, why not, deployed troops against the Coalition. Makes as much sense as if I said the US has always been the enemy of France and England since it voted against these two countries during the Suez expedition of 1956 when they fought a Soviet-backed, terrorist sponsor, or because the US voted against France during the Algerian War.

Now, do I regret Saddam's untimely toppling ? My, for me it was only untimely in the sense it should have happened in 1991, but at that time the US were opposed to such a move and the Coalition sacrificed the Kurds that had risen against Saddam.

[Atlantic Friend]

I'll have to go check ! Allying ourselves with Great Britain is a rather recent trend, but one we've followed assiduously.

it was during the third anglo-Dutch war, the treaty of Dover was signed in 1670 and it meant that if either country was to attack Holland the other one had to pitch in

It was at a time when the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, correct ? Both France and England had axes to grind with Spain then.

no we'd kicked them out by 1648

during the third Dutch/Anglo war some German states, the UK and Franch ganged up on us for different reasons (brittish wanted to rule the waves, French wanted more land and the germans were ... well ... germans don't really need a reason to invade anyone ;))

My, I DEFINITELY have to go read some books on that era ! My favorite period has always been contemporary history, but as I grow older - and hopefully wiser - I get more interested in the Renaissance to Modern Times.

The Low Countries have usually been the scourge of French knights, so how did the Dutch troops fare in this War ?

[foxtrot023]

And, the US Civil War, where France sided with the Rebel South against our Union. And, Operation Iraqi Freedom, where France sided with keeping Saddam in power.

France did not sided with the Confederates. France, like England, some german princedoms, Spain, Netherlands, and a long etc, had military observers with the confederate army. England and France were on the brink of declaring for the confederates, but they did not. As a matter of fact, England came closer to declaring war to the Union than France did, over several incidents (like when a english ship was stopped and confined in 1861-2).

[futurepilot2004]

Operation Iraqi Freedom, where France sided with keeping Saddam in power.

rofl rofl rofl :cantbeli: rofl rofl rofl

[sp2c]

My, I DEFINITELY have to go read some books on that era ! My favorite period has always been contemporary history, but as I grow older - and hopefully wiser - I get more interested in the Renaissance to Modern Times.

The Low Countries have usually been the scourge of French knights, so how did the Dutch troops fare in this War ?
it was a mixed succes afaik

on land several provinces were seized/given up but the crucial ones (Holland, with all the important cities like amsterdam, rotterdam and the Hague) were succesfully defended by flooding key parts of land behind the old Dutch waterline (defended by marines) while the respective navies repeatedly beat eachother up severly, we also seized New England (formerly know as new Amsterdam, currently know as New York) for a while forcing the locals to flee to Boston or something like that.

all in all it was an incredibly expensive and hard fought draw between the Netherlands and the UK with France and the participating german thiefdoms as a laughing second but they had to withdraw eventually afaik

I'm not to certain about all this since I am more interested in contemporary history as well but it should be close to the truth ;)

[Atlantic Friend]

we also seized New England (formerly know as new Amsterdam, currently know as New York) for a while forcing the locals to flee to Boston or something like that.

all in all it was an incredibly expensive and hard fought draw between the Netherlands and the UK with France and the participating german thiefdoms as a laughing second but they had to withdraw eventually afaik

I'm not to certain about all this since I am more interested in contemporary history as well but it should be close to the truth ;)

Was is during the Dutch seizure of New York that the island of Manhattan was bought ? I think I read it was bought by a Dutchman. Jeez, I really feeli like I'm the dullard at the back of the class ! :oops:

[sp2c]

Was is during the Dutch seizure of New York that the island of Manhattan was bought ? I think I read it was bought by a Dutchman. Jeez, I really feeli like I'm the dullard at the back of the class ! :oops:

now that was before that

New York started out as New Amsterdam, during the second Anglo-Dutch war the Brits sailed a fleet of warships into the harbor and demanded the Dutch surrendered immedeately.
There was hardly any local garrizon and Dutch as they were they just wanted to make money so they figured they could do that just as well under the british flag as they would under the Dutch one and this way they wouldn't get their houses shot up and burned down by angry brits :)

In retaliation the Dutch seized large parts of Latin America (Surinam among other parts) and admiral de Ruyter sailed a fleet of warships right up the Thames river to burn down and steel some British capitol ships.
This was called 'the raid on Chatham' and left the British fleet such a bad state that the UK could not continue the war (treasury was empty at the time as well) so they let the Dutch dictate the peace accords.
The Dutch opted for keeping the mineral rich latin american territories instead of demanding New York to be returned to the kingdom

Don't really know how it went from British to American though

[Atlantic Friend]

Was is during the Dutch seizure of New York that the island of Manhattan was bought ? I think I read it was bought by a Dutchman. Jeez, I really feeli like I'm the dullard at the back of the class ! :oops:

now that was before that

New York started out as New Amsterdam, during the second Anglo-Dutch war the Brits sailed a fleet of warships into the harbor and demanded the Dutch surrendered immedeately.
There was hardly any local garrizon and Dutch as they were they just wanted to make money so they figured they could do that just as well under the british flag as they would under the Dutch one and this way they wouldn't get their houses shot up and burned down by angry brits :)

In retaliation the Dutch seized large parts of Latin America (Surinam among other parts) and admiral de Ruyter sailed a fleet of warships right up the Thames river to burn down and steel some British capitol ships.
This was called 'the raid on Chatham' and left the British fleet such a bad state that the UK could not continue the war (treasury was empty at the time as well) so they let the Dutch dictate the peace accords.
The Dutch opted for keeping the mineral rich latin american territories instead of demanding New York to be returned to the kingdom

Don't really know how it went from British to American though

Certainly at some point during the War of Independence - another period of History I definitely have to read about.

[sp2c]

Certainly at some point during the War of Independence - another period of History I definitely have to read about.

same here that's why we can't really blame the Americans for knowing **** about European history ;)

[thalia]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/chirac_putin_schroeder_stooges.jpg
that's a good one rofl rofl rofl

[Atlantic Friend]

Certainly at some point during the War of Independence - another period of History I definitely have to read about.

same here that's why we can't really blame the Americans for knowing **** about European history ;)

I suppose not - what frightens me is when they (or we) don't know their (or our) own. I sometimes post at Free republic, a very conservative US site, and while most of the time I meet nice and very knowledgeable people, sometimes I stumble upon sadder people, whose grasp of history is whatever they have been fed by their political activists or editorialists : those who think the US declared war on Nazi Germany, those who say the US does not sell weapons to Arab states, or that the French fleet at Toulon was sunk by French sailors who didn't want the ships to fall into US hands. You get the idea.

As for the Independence War, my newlywed wife, who is American, gave me a fabulous book titled "What If" which lists some of the possible twosts History could have suffered if such or such event hadn't taken place. The chapters about the Independence War are really fascinating, the whole affair was rather hairy, and the British had many opportunities to win before and even after French intervention.

[mattnwnc03]

if you ate snails and looked queer youd be pissed too :)

[BlackRain]

The quasi-war : er, nope, we weren't at war. There were tensions, severe tensions indeed, but we weren't at war..

Really? I guess they censor unfavorable history in French schools.

The Quasi War with France; 1791-1800. Look it up: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/quasi.htm

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05e_QW246DelawareCroyable.jpg
Battle between the Delaware and French privateer Croyable.

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05f_E323A42ConstlInsurgente.jpg
Battle between the Constellation and the Insurgente

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05i_QW250ConstllatnVengence.jpg
Battle between the Constellation and the Vengeance.


The Navy's First Fights and Heroes

The American navy's first victory in the Quasi-War occurred off the coast of New Jersey in July 1798. Captain Stephen Decatur, Sr., received word of the plundering of a coastal trader by the French schooner Croyable. Decatur immediately set sail in the 20-gun schooner Delaware.

Encountering the French privateer at sea, Decatur lured the Frenchman to approach by pretending to be a merchant vessel. By the time the Croyable, armed with only twelve guns, realized that this sought-after prize was in fact a more powerful ship of war, she herself had become a prize of the U.S. Navy.

Battle between the Delaware and French privateer Croyable. From the collections of The Mariners' Museum.
Though the action was short and the outcome never in question, the American navy had won its first prize and added another ship to its growing fleet. Decatur escorted the Croyable to Philadelphia, where she was recommissioned as the Retaliation.

Truxtun and the Constellation versus L'Insurgente

Decatur's capture of the Croyable was but a hint of actions to come during the Quasi-War. Among the naval commanders who took part in the battles against France, few are better known than

A former Revolutionary War privateer, Truxtun received a commendation from George Washington for his service during that conflict. During the 1780s and 1790s, Truxtun had earned a reputation as an extremely capable merchantman, navigator, and protector of his passengers, crew, and cargo. In 1794, Truxtun became supervisor of construction for the frigate Constellation in Baltimore.

During the Quasi-War, Truxtun commanded this ship on her first armed cruise. The new Constellation had both speed and maneuverability, qualities that earned her the name "Yankee Race Horse." For operations in the West Indies and the Caribbean, Secretary Stoddert divided the fleet into four squadrons; Truxtun was given command of the Leeward Island Squadron, which consisted of the Constellation and two brigs.

On February 9, 1799, Truxtun was headed for the island of Nevis when he caught sight of the French frigate L'Insurgente. After pursuing the Frenchman, Truxtun prepared for action. However, as the two ships were on the verge of engaging one another, a squall engulfed them, snapping the main topmast of the French frigate. The loss of mobility, coupled with the French tendency to fire high into the opponent's rigging, gave Truxtun a deadly advantage.


Unable to maneuver and suffering from heavy damage to her hull by American gunnery, the 40-gun L'Insurgente was defeated by the 38-gun Constellation. The battle had lasted only seventy-five minutes. The Constellation suffered three casualties, compared to seventy sustained by L'Insurgente. "A very fine frigate [is] being added to our infant Navy" was the report sent to Stoddert.

The Constellation versus La Vengeance

A year later, Truxtun was again in the Caribbean when he spotted the French 50-gun La Vengeance, commanded by Captain Citizen Pitot, headed to France from Guadeloupe.

Although Truxtun realized his opponent outgunned him, he was convinced that the Constellation's greater maneuverability and more accurate gunnery would win the day. A four-hour battle ensued. Again, the French focused their fire on the American rigging, while the Yankee ship pounded away at the Frenchman's hull and timbers. The punishment to La Vengeance was so great that three times the French attempted to haul down their colors. However, in the growing darkness, Truxtun was not able to see the signal. After five hours of cannon fire, the French managed to weaken the Constellation's mainmast to the point that it snapped off at the deck. Truxtun pulled back to repair the damage, and La Vengeance escaped into the darkness.

The Constellation limped to Port Royal, Jamaica, while the French frigate made her way to Dutch Curaçao. In his report to the French government, Pitot reported erroneously that he had just fought an American ship of the line. The American frigates had become a force to be respected by their opponents.

The Treaty of Mortefountaine and the Survival of the Navy

Contrary to the advice of most of his cabinet, President Adams continued to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. A peace commission was sent to meet with Napoleon, who knew that France's most ardent enemy was England and that a continued war would throw the United States further on the side of the enemy.

Negotiations were held in Paris starting in April 1800, and the Treaty of Mortefountaine was approved by Congress in 1801. Meanwhile, the presidency had passed from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. Through the terms of the treaty, the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Alliance was annulled and France agreed to respect United States neutrality. In return, the United States canceled all claims against the French for attacks on shipping during the war.

Clearly, Truxtun's actions and several smaller engagements gained the U.S. Navy respect and status. The navy had succeeded in protecting American commerce and had fought a European naval power to the negotiating table.

As a result of these actions, the navy's survival was assured, but its strength would remain in question. Many political leaders, particularly those in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, felt that a large navy was wasteful and unnecessary.

Following the cessation of hostilities with France, Secretary Stoddert bowed to the inevitable and proposed the Peace Establishment Act, which would reduce the navy to thirteen frigates and cut the number of officers and crew. Of the thirteen frigates to be retained, six would operate under a reduced crew and seven would be put on reserve.

[BlackRain]

The Civil War : Nope, France did not "side with" the South. If we had you would have seen French-made guns, French ships, French troops, and first and foremost we would have granted official recognition to the Confederates).


Napoleon Sides with Confederates

Confederate President Jefferson Davis had named a distinguished Southerner, John Slidell of Louisiana, as commissioner to represent Confederate interests in France.

Napoleon's government in many ways was quite cordial to the Confederates, and in the fall of 1862 Napoleon III talked with Slidell and then proposed that France, England, and Russia join in trying to bring about a six-month armistice.

To Slidell the Emperor remarked that if the Northern government rejected this proposal, that might give good reason for recognition and perhaps even for active intervention.

Neither Britain nor Russia would go along with him, but early in 1863 Napoleon had the French Minister at Washington suggest to Seward that there ought to be a meeting of Northern and Southern representatives to see whether the war might not be brought to a close.

Seward politely but firmly rejected this suggestion, and the Congress, much less politely, formally resolved that any foreign government which made such proposals was thereby committing an unfriendly act.

Whether Napoleon really expected anything to come of his suggestion is a question; probably he strongly wanted a Southern victory but was afraid to do anything definite without British support. His real interest was in Mexico, where he took advantage of the war to create a French puppet state, installing the Hapsburg Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico in direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

Propped up by French troops, Maximilian managed to hang on to his shaky throne for several years, and if his control over the country had been firmer, Napoleon would probably have given the Confederacy, from that base, more active support.

Shortly after Appomattox the Federal government sent General Phil Sheridan and 50,000 veterans to the Mexican border in blunt warning, Seward filed a formal protest against the occupation, and Napoleon withdrew his soldiers.

When the French troops left, the Mexicans regained control, and Maximilian was deposed and executed.

Union Blockade Runners - French Intervention in Civil War

Most of the blockade runners were built in England/France. In france they were built by a man by the name of Laird who owned the Laird Docks.

France Builds Warships for Southern Confederates

France contracted to build warships for the South despite neutrality proclamations. One large iron-clad warship was called the CS Stonewall.

http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/newgif/lram.jpg

http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/stonewall.htm

[roland]

@BlackRain
Quasi war: you forgot to mention that the tension was due to the fact that the USA didn't paid its debt to France and that the USA didn't respected the 1778 treaty that said that the USA had to help France against the British in North America.
That would had been nice if the USA had respected its word at a time it was badly needed: France had to make a Revolution while it was attacked by all the most powerfull kingdom of Europe at the same time.
Also you forgot to say to that the Republicans, in the opposition: Jefferson, Madison, etc., supported France.

I think you read "Our oldest enemy" too much man :roll:

[Atlantic Friend]

The quasi-war : er, nope, we weren't at war. There were tensions, severe tensions indeed, but we weren't at war..

Really? I guess they censor unfavorable history in French schools.

The Quasi War with France; 1791-1800. Look it up: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/quasi.htm

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05e_QW246DelawareCroyable.jpg
Battle between the Delaware and French privateer Croyable.

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05f_E323A42ConstlInsurgente.jpg
Battle between the Constellation and the Insurgente

http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/images_content/fullsize/05i_QW250ConstllatnVengence.jpg
Battle between the Constellation and the Vengeance.


The Navy's First Fights and Heroes

The American navy's first victory in the Quasi-War occurred off the coast of New Jersey in July 1798. Captain Stephen Decatur, Sr., received word of the plundering of a coastal trader by the French schooner Croyable. Decatur immediately set sail in the 20-gun schooner Delaware.

Encountering the French privateer at sea, Decatur lured the Frenchman to approach by pretending to be a merchant vessel. By the time the Croyable, armed with only twelve guns, realized that this sought-after prize was in fact a more powerful ship of war, she herself had become a prize of the U.S. Navy.

Battle between the Delaware and French privateer Croyable. From the collections of The Mariners' Museum.
Though the action was short and the outcome never in question, the American navy had won its first prize and added another ship to its growing fleet. Decatur escorted the Croyable to Philadelphia, where she was recommissioned as the Retaliation.

Truxtun and the Constellation versus L'Insurgente

Decatur's capture of the Croyable was but a hint of actions to come during the Quasi-War. Among the naval commanders who took part in the battles against France, few are better known than

A former Revolutionary War privateer, Truxtun received a commendation from George Washington for his service during that conflict. During the 1780s and 1790s, Truxtun had earned a reputation as an extremely capable merchantman, navigator, and protector of his passengers, crew, and cargo. In 1794, Truxtun became supervisor of construction for the frigate Constellation in Baltimore.

During the Quasi-War, Truxtun commanded this ship on her first armed cruise. The new Constellation had both speed and maneuverability, qualities that earned her the name "Yankee Race Horse." For operations in the West Indies and the Caribbean, Secretary Stoddert divided the fleet into four squadrons; Truxtun was given command of the Leeward Island Squadron, which consisted of the Constellation and two brigs.

On February 9, 1799, Truxtun was headed for the island of Nevis when he caught sight of the French frigate L'Insurgente. After pursuing the Frenchman, Truxtun prepared for action. However, as the two ships were on the verge of engaging one another, a squall engulfed them, snapping the main topmast of the French frigate. The loss of mobility, coupled with the French tendency to fire high into the opponent's rigging, gave Truxtun a deadly advantage.


Unable to maneuver and suffering from heavy damage to her hull by American gunnery, the 40-gun L'Insurgente was defeated by the 38-gun Constellation. The battle had lasted only seventy-five minutes. The Constellation suffered three casualties, compared to seventy sustained by L'Insurgente. "A very fine frigate [is] being added to our infant Navy" was the report sent to Stoddert.

The Constellation versus La Vengeance

A year later, Truxtun was again in the Caribbean when he spotted the French 50-gun La Vengeance, commanded by Captain Citizen Pitot, headed to France from Guadeloupe.

Although Truxtun realized his opponent outgunned him, he was convinced that the Constellation's greater maneuverability and more accurate gunnery would win the day. A four-hour battle ensued. Again, the French focused their fire on the American rigging, while the Yankee ship pounded away at the Frenchman's hull and timbers. The punishment to La Vengeance was so great that three times the French attempted to haul down their colors. However, in the growing darkness, Truxtun was not able to see the signal. After five hours of cannon fire, the French managed to weaken the Constellation's mainmast to the point that it snapped off at the deck. Truxtun pulled back to repair the damage, and La Vengeance escaped into the darkness.

The Constellation limped to Port Royal, Jamaica, while the French frigate made her way to Dutch Curaçao. In his report to the French government, Pitot reported erroneously that he had just fought an American ship of the line. The American frigates had become a force to be respected by their opponents.

The Treaty of Mortefountaine and the Survival of the Navy

Contrary to the advice of most of his cabinet, President Adams continued to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. A peace commission was sent to meet with Napoleon, who knew that France's most ardent enemy was England and that a continued war would throw the United States further on the side of the enemy.

Negotiations were held in Paris starting in April 1800, and the Treaty of Mortefountaine was approved by Congress in 1801. Meanwhile, the presidency had passed from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. Through the terms of the treaty, the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Alliance was annulled and France agreed to respect United States neutrality. In return, the United States canceled all claims against the French for attacks on shipping during the war.

Clearly, Truxtun's actions and several smaller engagements gained the U.S. Navy respect and status. The navy had succeeded in protecting American commerce and had fought a European naval power to the negotiating table.

As a result of these actions, the navy's survival was assured, but its strength would remain in question. Many political leaders, particularly those in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, felt that a large navy was wasteful and unnecessary.

Following the cessation of hostilities with France, Secretary Stoddert bowed to the inevitable and proposed the Peace Establishment Act, which would reduce the navy to thirteen frigates and cut the number of officers and crew. Of the thirteen frigates to be retained, six would operate under a reduced crew and seven would be put on reserve.

Most interesting... We don't get taught that, not because we censor history books (gimme a break, dude), but because when you get taught French history during the Napoleonic era, there's so much to cover from Austerlitz to the Russian disaster and Waterloo. But I stand with what I said : this Quasi-War wasn't one. Naval actions with privateers, yes, invasion of each other's territory, land battles ? Nope.

[Bombtrack]

Here in Canada the French cry about losing there culture, which is very stupid. Back in 1995 they had an Ice Storm in Quebec, and who saved them the Canadian Army n the American Army. Then a couple months after they had a referendum to separate with Canada.

Coming from an Ontarian who is probably no more then 16 (by the way you type), you have no clue what youre talking about. The Ice Storm was in 1998, 3 years after the referendum you smartass. And the Canadian Army DID help, but guess what you ****, a very big chunk of the Canadian Army is FROM Quebec, and those who assisted were from here (my unit included). The sovereigntists dont "cry and bitch" about Canada, sure a lot of their politicians are whiny scumbags, but the average seperatist dont hate Canada (contrary to popular belief), they would just prefer to be a sovereign nation

[fantassin]

Here in Canada the French cry about losing there culture, which is very stupid. Back in 1995 they had an Ice Storm in Quebec, and who saved them the Canadian Army n the American Army. Then a couple months after they had a referendum to separate with Canada.

Coming from an Ontarian who is probably no more then 16 (by the way you type), you have no clue what youre talking about. The Ice Storm was in 1998, 3 years after the referendum you smartass. And the Canadian Army DID help, but guess what you ****, a very big chunk of the Canadian Army is FROM Quebec, and those who assisted were from here (my unit included). The sovereigntists dont "cry and bitch" about Canada, sure a lot of their politicians are whiny scumbags, but the average seperatist dont hate Canada (contrary to popular belief), they would just prefer to be a sovereign nation

Too bloody true, my regiment was supposed to have an exchange with the R22R during that winter and it was cancelled because of the ice storm.

[Caesar]

Here in Canada the French cry about losing there culture, which is very stupid. Back in 1995 they had an Ice Storm in Quebec, and who saved them the Canadian Army n the American Army. Then a couple months after they had a referendum to separate with Canada.

Coming from an Ontarian who is probably no more then 16 (by the way you type), you have no clue what youre talking about. The Ice Storm was in 1998, 3 years after the referendum you smartass. And the Canadian Army DID help, but guess what you ****, a very big chunk of the Canadian Army is FROM Quebec, and those who assisted were from here (my unit included). The sovereigntists dont "cry and bitch" about Canada, sure a lot of their politicians are whiny scumbags, but the average seperatist dont hate Canada (contrary to popular belief), they would just prefer to be a sovereign nation

Too bloody true, my regiment was supposed to have an exchange with the R22R during that winter and it was cancelled because of the ice storm.

Was it reported? I'd love to do that.

[fantassin]

Yes, it took place in 1999 instead.

[BlackRain]

@BlackRain
Quasi war: you forgot to mention that the tension was due to the fact that the USA didn't paid its debt to France and that the USA didn't respected the 1778 treaty that said that the USA had to help France against the British in North America.
That would had been nice if the USA had respected its word at a time it was badly needed: France had to make a Revolution while it was attacked by all the most powerfull kingdom of Europe at the same time.
Also you forgot to say to that the Republicans, in the opposition: Jefferson, Madison, etc., supported France.

I think you read "Our oldest enemy" too much man :roll:

Again, what have you not been taught in history class?

The French government insisted that the United States was required by the Treaty of Amenity and Commerce - signed in 1778 - to join actively in their wars.

The US replied that the treaty had been between the US and Louis XVI and that any such treaty had been rendered void with the fall of the crown.

By mid-1796 French privateers began seizing American ships on the high seas. In the next 12 months over 300 merchant ships were captured.

As one of his final acts as President, Washington sent Charles C Pinckney to Paris to negotiate with the revolutionary assembly. The French not only refused to negotiate, they threatened to arrest Pinckney if he did not immediately leave the country. Pinckney fled to the Netherlands.

Adams's inauguration on 4 March, 1797 marked the first time an administration had changed under the rules of the US Constitution. The situation with France, however, did not improve - in fact, if anything, the resentment in France had increased due to Adams's remarks supporting American neutrality. Adams determined to try once more to negotiate with France, sending Pickney once more, this time accompanied by John Marshall and Elbrige Gerry. They arrived in the autumn of 1797.

The XYZ Affair

The delegation met, unofficially, with the French foreign minister, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, on 4 October, 1797. After this hopeful start the Americans waited many weeks for a formal reception.

Behind the scene, Tallyrand sent three representatives to meet secretly with the delegation. They were Jean Conrad Hottinguer, a Swiss national, Mr Bellamy, an American living in Germany, and Lucien Hauteval, another Swiss national. In his report to Congress, Adams decided not to reveal the names of these men and they are known in history by the letters X, Y and Z.

The basic offer from Tallyrand through these men was that the US make a loan of 12 million dollars to the French government and publicly apologize for anti-French statements that Adams had made, and that a 250,000 dollar 'fee' be paid directly to Talleyrand.

Only after these terms had been met would Talleyrand consider meeting officially with the American delegation. When it became clear that the French Directorate would not waver from their demand, Pickney and Marshall returned to the US while Gerry remained in France hoping that he might still avoid a declaration of war.

End of the Quasi War

President Adams again sent a peace delegation to Paris in April, 1800. On 30 September, 1800 the treaty was signed and hostilities ceased. Although the French refused to pay reparations for the ships and goods lost during the war, they consented to void the treaty of 1778, and agreed to a new alliance which would allow the US to remain neutral in the European wars.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2026766

[roland]

@BlackRain:

Question of point of vew I guess .....



De la guerre d’Indépendance à la Quasi War (1775-1801)
(...)
Les Etats-Unis et la Révolution française

Après 1789, les relations bilatérales ne s’améliorent guère. Le paradoxe surprend à bien des égards. D’abord, il est incontestable que l’expérience américaine, en consacrant les idées de Liberté et d’Egalité, ainsi que les principes de souveraineté populaire et de consentement à l’impôt, a eu une influence notable sur les protagonistes français. Les Etats-Unis ont donné à la doctrine révolutionnaire, élaborée en France dans les salons, les académies locales, les loges maçonniques, les cabinets de lecture, l’Encyclopédie et les différentes gazettes, ce qui lui manquait encore : l’exemple de son applicabilité. Par ailleurs, le Bill of Rights de Virginie (1776) et la Constitution fédérale (1787) ont naturellement servi de « modèles » aux rédacteurs de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789 et de la Constitution de 1791. Ensuite, les hommes au pouvoir de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique sont apparemment faits pour s’entendre. La Fayette, le « Héros des Deux Mondes », nommé commandant en chef de la Garde Nationale, dirige pratiquement la France en 1790, tandis que George Washington est le premier président élu des Etats-Unis (1789-1797) . Mieux, le secrétaire d’Etat américain, en d’autres termes le chef de la diplomatie de la jeune République, n’est autre que le très francophile Thomas Jefferson. Si l’on ajoute, enfin, à cela le fait qu’après l’abolition de la Monarchie, en août 1792, la France devient à son tour une République, on ne voit pas comment les deux pays pourraient ne pas s’entendre. Or, il n’en est rien. Bien au contraire…

Il faut dire que, dans les prodromes de la première véritable crise franco-américaine, la situation politique dans les deux pays joue un rôle certain. Les excès révolutionnaires qui secouent la France jacobine inquiètent les fédéralistes américains au pouvoir (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, etc.), autant qu’ils suscitent de la sympathie chez les républicains dans l’opposition (Jefferson, Madison, etc.). Les premiers, partisans d’un pouvoir fort, quasi monarchique, recrutent parmi les milieux d’affaires des ports du Nord-Est. « La guerre est finie, place au commerce avec la Grande-Bretagne ! », semble être leur devise. Restés anglophiles malgré la guerre d’Indépendance, ils s’inquiètent de voir les échanges commerciaux avec le Vieux Continent désorganisés, voire paralysés, par la guerre franco-anglaise déclenchée en 1793. Les seconds, inquiets d’un éventuel retour en force de l’ancienne puissance tutélaire, tiennent à l’alliance française. Pour ces représentants des Etats agricoles et esclavagistes du Sud, l’avenir de l’Union est à l’ouest du Mississippi, dans la conquête de la Louisiane, cédée par la France à l’Espagne en 1762. Toutefois, la tournure que prennent les événements en France inquiète George Washington.
La Convention a, en effet, déclaré la guerre à la Grande-Bretagne. Si bien que la jeune République française se trouve en conflit avec une coalition de monarchies européennes. Or, le traité militaire franco-américain de 1778 est toujours en vigueur. Philadelphie, craignant d’être entraînée dans un conflit qui ne concerne pas les Américains, proclame la neutralité des Etats-Unis. Washington n’honore donc pas sa signature de 1778. Cette position diplomatique fait les affaires des armateurs et des négociants bostoniens qui y trouvent un intérêt immédiat, puisque les Antilles françaises s’ouvrent aux produits américains. Surtout, la déclaration de neutralité du 22 avril 1793 marque le début d’une tradition ambiguë d’isolationnisme .

L’affaire Genet (1793-1794)

Au différend né de la question des dettes américaines et du non-respect du traité de 1778, viennent s’ajouter les maladresses du nouvel ambassadeur de France à Philadelphie. Nommé par la Convention, en novembre 1792, Edmond Genet (1763-1834) est un ami personnel de Jefferson et un admirateur de la jeune République. Croyant en la solidarité franco-américaine, il lance, dès son arrivée triomphale à Charleston, en avril 1793, un vibrant appel aux citoyens américains pour qu’ils viennent au secours de la France républicaine en guerre contre l’Angleterre. En faisant cela, il feint d’ignorer la position officielle des Etats-Unis dans le conflit. Dans le même temps, il fait armer des corsaires dans les ports américains pour s’attaquer au commerce maritime britannique. En octobre, encouragé par Hamilton (secrétaire d’Etat au Trésor) et Knox (secrétaire d’Etat à la Guerre), tous deux ouvertement anti-français, le président Washington demande au Comité de Salut Public le rappel de Genet. Le diplomate est aussitôt révoqué par les Montagnards qui viennent de chasser les Girondins du pouvoir à Paris. Son successeur, le commissaire Faucher, débarque à Philadelphie en février 1794. Chargé d’arrêter Genet et de le ramener en France, il demande son extradition au gouvernement fédéral. Celui-ci refuse. Genet évite ainsi la guillotine et décide prudemment de rester sur le territoire américain. Il épousera, quelques années plus tard, Cornelia Clinton, fille du gouverneur de l’Etat de New York, et sera fait citoyen des Etats-Unis.

L’affaire Genet n’est qu’une des étapes du processus de dégradation des relations bilatérales. Sa révocation ne règle pas les contentieux qui, au contraire, se multiplient. En vertu d’un décret de Floréal an I, les Français saisissent les navires américains chargés de cargaisons destinées à l’Angleterre en escale dans les ports français. A la fin de l’année suivante, en violation du traité commercial franco-américain de 1778, les Américains, par l’entremise du président de la Cour Suprême, John Jay, signent un traité de commerce avec les Anglais. Alors que Washington a dépêché James Monroe à Paris, afin d’y témoigner de l’inaltérable amitié des Etats-Unis, le traité anglo-américain du 19 novembre 1794, dit « traité Jay », met fin aux illusions françaises. Bien que logique, cette alliance d’intérêts et de culture est accueillie par Paris comme une trahison, voire une déclaration de guerre, puisqu’il est désormais permis aux Anglais, en vertu du « droit de visite », de confisquer les marchandises françaises découvertes à bord de navires américains. La Convention prend des mesures de rétorsion qui aggravent la tension. Des navires américains sont arraisonnés par des corsaires et immobilisés dans des ports français, notamment à Bordeaux. L’alliance franco-américaine de 1778 a bel et bien vécu. Et l’ambassadeur américain Gouverneur (c’est son prénom) Morris, grand séducteur à la jambe de bois, n’y pourra rien.

La Quasi War et ses conséquences (1797-1801)

Avec l’élection à la Présidence de l’Union du fédéraliste John Adams (1797-1801) - Thomas Jefferson est son vice-président républicain (en raison du mode de scrutin) -, la crise entre Paris et Philadelphie atteint son paroxysme. Le Directoire ordonne à l’ambassadeur Monroe de quitter le territoire français, et à la marine de la République de lancer une véritable guerre de course contre les navires américains. Ainsi, pendant près de quatre ans, les deux pays vont se faire une « guerre non déclarée », baptisée Quasi War outre-Atlantique. C’est, avec le débarquement de novembre 1942 en Afrique du Nord, et si l’on excepte les combats de la période coloniale, la seule occasion dans toute l’Histoire où du sang sera versé entre Français et Américains. Alors que la tension est vive entre les deux pays, Adams n’en tente pas moins l’apaisement. En octobre 1797, il envoie trois délégués (Pinckney, Gerry et Marshall) en France, afin de trouver une solution à la crise. Mais, en avril 1798, Talleyrand, ministre des Affaires étrangères du Directoire, accepte d’engager les pourparlers à condition de recevoir, dit-on, un pot de vin de 250.000 dollars.
L’« affaire XYZ », du nom des intermédiaires de l’ancien évêque d’Autun, fait scandale au Congrès. Une vague de francophobie se répand outre-Atlantique. La majorité fédéraliste et anglophile réclame la guerre. Tandis que le Sénat dénonce tous les traités signés avec la France depuis juillet 1778, le Président du jeune Etat s’y refuse. Mais il ordonne la capture de tous les navires français, décrète l’embargo sur les produits fabriqués en France et décide de soutenir la révolte de Toussaint-Louverture à Saint-Domingue, via un agent américain, le docteur Edward Stevens. La langue de Molière, enseignée jusqu’alors à l’Université d’Harvard, fait les frais de la guerre.

Pendant trois ans, escarmouches, incidents et combats navals vont se multiplier, principalement dans les Caraïbes. Le 7 juillet 1798, l’U.S.S. Delaware capture la goélette française La Croyable sur les côtes de Pennsylvanie. Elle est aussitôt rebaptisée U.S.S. Retaliation. L’année suivante, la goélette est récupérée par les frégates françaises Volontaire et Insurgente. La défaite de cette dernière (40 canons, 400 hommes) face à la frégate américaine U.S.S. Constellation (38 canons, 316 hommes), le 9 mars 1799, reste l’épisode le plus célèbre de la Quasi War. La prise du bâtiment, rebaptisé U.S.S. Insurgent, est rendue plus humiliante encore par l’attitude déshonorante de son pleutre capitaine, Barreaut. Ce dernier, paralysé de terreur pendant le combat, en perd tout orgueil. Croyant s’attaquer à une corvette, il sous-estime la force de l’adversaire. Officier de la grande Marine française, il ignore peut-être que les modestes Etats-Unis se sont dotés de 6 frégates de 40 canons, pour garantir leurs intérêts commerciaux face aux pirates barbaresques en Méditerranée et longer les côtes chinoises. Eléments précurseurs de l’U.S. Navy , la Constellation et ses sister ships inaugurent ainsi la présence américaine en Méditerranée et dans la Pacifique, avant de faire respecter le pavillon américain aux Antilles.

La convention de Mortefontaine (1801)

Cette fois, Talleyrand et les représentants du Directoire proposent, les premiers, de négocier avec les représentants américains, débarqués de l’U.S.S. United States en octobre 1799. La France n’a pas les moyens de faire la guerre sur plusieurs fronts à la fois. Adams accepte de discuter, malgré l’hostilité de l’opinion américaine et l’opposition de Hamilton, qui fait figure de « faucon ». Le coup d’Etat du 18 Brumaire ne contrarie que provisoirement les négociations. Le nouveau régime, baptisé Consulat, n’opère pas de revirement diplomatique. Bonaparte reçoit même la délégation américaine, composée de Vans Murray, Davis et Ellsworth, au palais des Tuileries, avant d’aller faire la guerre en Italie. Preuve que le Premier Consul reprend la politique de Talleyrand à son propre compte, c’est son frère, Joseph, qui dirige la délégation française, composée entre autres du comte de Roederer et du comte de Fleurieu . Après plusieurs mois de tractations difficiles, l’accord est finalement signé le 30 septembre 1800 dans la propriété de Joseph, à Mortefontaine, au nord de Paris, puis il est ratifié le 23 mars 1801. La convention met fin à l’état de guerre et prévoit la restitution mutuelle des propriétés capturées, l’acquittement des dettes respectives et l’application de la clause de la nation la plus favorisée en matière commerciale.

Curieusement la fin de la Quasi War consacre le déclin politique des fédéralistes gallophobes et permet aux républicains francophiles d’emporter les élections du 4 mars 1801. L’accession de Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), le Sage de Monticello, à la Présidence de l’Union est donc vécue à Paris comme une aubaine. Elle va participer de l’amélioration des relations bilatérales voulue par le Premier Consul.
(...)


http://www.servicehistorique.marine.defense.gouv.fr/prodt/eunis/eunis3.htm



The US replied that the treaty had been between the US and Louis XVI and that any such treaty had been rendered void with the fall of the crown.


That was pure bad faith. Doing that to France, the American's sister Republic, just after the Independance war. nice backstabbing but well ...

[BlackRain]

That was pure bad faith. Doing that to France, the American's sister Republic, just after the Independance war. nice backstabbing but well ...

It is a matter of international relations over the centuries that treaties become void when a government is overthrown or ceases to exist.

Should modern day France honor agreements with Nazi Germany that the Vichy Government made?

Of course not, both of these governments no longer exist just as the "Christian King" of France who the treaty was signed with no longer existed.

The US did not want to be drawn into any European wars with the new Revolutionary government of France.

[Aerosoul]

What's the problem with French?

They're French.

[[AFSOC]]

holy Jesus this is an OLD thread

[Holstein]

chirac and bush same **** to me

[ibstolidude]

the primary problem I have with the french is that none of them could seem to decypher a vague memory I had of eating a pate' that I belive consisted of a mixture of foi gras and a cheese together in a glass jar. It was not store purchased but rather made by a family. I have never seen it since. What the hell was it!

Give this horrid thread some value and refresh my brain.

[MEGR]

Someone kill this thread.

GO ANDORRA!!!