French Election

Funny that we're arguing about French "strategic blunders" in Vietnam some five decades ago, when our own "strategic blunders" in Iraq alone are enough to make the French gush.

Please! You guys make it sound like having a high-tech military force is enough to compensate for idiotic planning and the complete inability to understand the enemy you're dealing with (his culture, his habits, what makes him 'tick', etc.)

I am going on record by saying that the current Bush administration has run one of the most incompetent military operations of the 20th century; it's quite embarrassing really.

Oh, and Hayes, hate to break it to you but the French military is quite competent and has been ranked near the top for almost a century now. Your personal opinion not withstanding of course, although I am sure it counts for something in your mind.

As for the French elections, all I have to say is this: the turnout was pretty darn impressive.

On a side note, I hate you guys for forcing me to defend the French...

 

I think that was Sarkozy's point and I don't think most of us disagree. My point was that the French while not the greatest were near the top among military forces and Otto's point was that they defeated themselves through tactical errors.

It happens to the best of us..

 

They did really well in WWII.

 

Has France fought and won a war by itself since Napoleon?

 

This isn't really supposed to be a discussion about the quality of the French military, so I've held back but I do want to point out that I described it as 'a series of tactical blunders', not strategic. I would not describe the mistakes in Iraq as tactical but rather strategic. I think Dien Bien Phu was a result of incompetence in the officers of the military. I would describe problems in Iraq as more incompetence of the politicians.

My insightful analysis of the French elections? I was amused by the irony of the socialist candidate being named 'Royal'.

In general terms, there seems to be a cultural issue where the French don't seem upset by the President using his powers for personal reasons. As a result they are a lot more fond of most of their presidents than I am. Along similar lines, I also think the French were not politely disagreeing with the USA as implied in the quote, but rather using their disagreement as a lever to try and increase French influence. Their approach can be contrasted with the German opposition which was impassioned but not self-serving.

I think many people feel need to defend France because of all of the bizarre 'freedom fries' political crap. I can appreciate that but I think it sometimes gets in the way.

 

Considering they had significantly larger per capita casualty figures you might consider context. France also lost nearly 10x as many soldiers in WWI as the USA, only 20 years earlier (the USA had about 1/2 as many soldiers die in WWI and WWII combined as the French did in WWI in absolute numbers for a country about 1/3 the population of the USA). Next time the Panzers are rolling on NYC roughly 20 years after about 7.5 million Americans are killed, you might be able to legitimately be in a position to criticize them.

 

That is a good reason why the French military was not strong, but it doesn't change the fact that it was not strong. Germany rolled France like a prostitute rolls a passed out drunk john. Besides, I was just joking, hence the winky, smiley guy. The legitimacy of calling the French military great over the past century is largely a matter of who you compare them to. I would take Germany, England, Russia/USSR and the US over France every time. Japan during WWII was stronger, but after WWII weaker. China was weaker until recently. Even with all of that, France is consistantly top ten which puts them in like the 95th percentile at worst. Depends on the standard people want to use to define great.

 

I would say that if they choose to kick us to increase their own power, they shouldn't expect to be treated as friends. It is probably my naïveté, but it seemed to be the consummate backstabbing maneuver. This is classic psychology of the dynamics of group behavior. If you are a monkey, you should clean the flees out of another monkey's fur if you want them to clean your fur later, etc.

So yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them, at least in terms of our relationship with them. It is reasonable to tally that as a debt owed in the mutual economy of our relationship. If they wish for us to consider them in our actions, it should be mutual. Germany was able to disagree without trying to profit at our expense.

 

At the direct expense of the interests of our allies?

So cutting off aid is a hostile act? US monitary aid is some sort of god-given right? The issue is not France gaining influence, it is encouraging anti-Americanism as a tool to gain influence. It is gaining influence by specifically trying to take it away from us.

The USA didn't need anything from France. The UN asked for French peacekeepers at the request of Syria. A resolution was put forth with the Israeli side presented by the USA and the Syrian side by France. I fail how the USA needed the French in this instance.

 

Intentional on my part, actually.

If we consider the current occupation of Iraq as yet another 'phase' of an already existing conflict that started with Desert Storm, then it really is a 20th century conflict that just happened to get 'hot' again in the 21st century.

At least that's what the Bush administration has argued in the past when the 'illegality' of the war was brought up at the UN...

 

Also consider that the Germans kicked the crap out of the British Army in Europe during the first part of the war and if the US hadn't entered probably would've invaded England. If not for the English Channel stalling the German Western advance we might also be talking about England as surrender monkeys.

 

I wouldn't go that far, but concerning the French Army just prior to WWII, the German High Command was scared to death of Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland. They told him that if the French chose to fight, there was no way they could defeat them. They held the French Military in some regard. What beat the French were superior tactics and strategy. (and failing to deal with Germany earlier)

Yes, the French should have seen the possibility of a thrust through the Ardennes, but they were not alone in thinking it impossible for a modern, mechanized army. And the French were among the "victors" of WWI, suffering horrific casualties in the process. Again, they were not alone in failing to recognize the changes in technology and the resultant need for a change in tactics and strategy that led to the slaughter.

Considering the unspeakable morass in Iraq Bush has led this country into, with the resultant decline in the world's perception of American power, something that, in my opinion, cannot be underestimated for its negative effect on American power and influence worldwide, it is hubris indeed to be criticizing the French. Post Afghanistan (and Gulf War I), few would have dared considered risking war with this country. I don't believe the same applies today. America needs to look at itself and what it has allowed to happen because of its own government, selected by the Supreme Court in a travesty in 2000, and elected in 2004. We need to address our own failings, in my opinion, and let the French address those that plague them.

Today, we are weaker because of George W. Bush. It is ironic, indeed, that this failed government still accuses the Democratic Party for its own disasters. Past time for a change. Past time for honesty from those who defend Bush regardless of what he does to America, Americans, and the world.



D&D.

 

Our collective delusion runs deep. We feel that we still have the moral imperative, and no great humiliation has occurred on our soil. Promoters for staying in Iraq have tapped into that hubris to compensate for the few facts they have at their disposal. And that tactic has been pretty effective considering the news coming out of Iraq.

This might not be the war that we can't dig out of, but it's not a stretch to think about a decline. The French themselves fought centuries of wars that depleted their wealth and promoted social neglect at home.

The president's denial to consider redeployment might be his indictment in the history books, but as long as there are people who support and demand his delusion, he can't be entirely blamed for the decline of American civilization.

 

People also shouldn't forget that France had a sizable chunk of their army in North Africa at the time dealing with messiness from colonialism. By the time they tried to mobilize and shift to the mainland, Paris had already fallen.

Someone asked about French military victories since Napoleon. Yes, their military has struggled since then. The reason is that France had three more revolutions (including the bloody end of the Commune in 1871) and had external powers attacking them during most of those (Prussia in 1870, for example). It did not become a Republic for good until 1870 (but really a few years later). France, therefore, was suffering through major population reduction even before WWI...it was sexy for women to be pregnant such that they could buy contraptions to make them look pregnant from month to month. Huge loss in 1870-71, huge loss (but victory) in 1914-18, and then the massive loss in WWII.

So, yeah, 1789-1945 were pretty much nonstop bloody and resulted in the much weaker France of today or of the 50's that tried stupidly to hold onto Vietnam.

 

Personally I thought it was irresponsible for Royal to make comments like "there will be riots if Sarkozy wins." Thats as close to inciting a riot as you can get.

 

Having an off day, Deckard?

 

(sigh)

Just to please you, I will remove the offending apostrophes.
Now, do you have anything to add, or are you the grammer policeperson today.



D&D. Dot your Eyes and Cross your Tease!