Is there too much contempt for the French from A&A players?

[Imperious Leader]

Right, and poor Germany was a victim of intertangled alliances in Europe all orchestrated the imperialist French. Clearly Germany was pacifistic and reluctant to go to war with France at all. World War I caused by the French? That’s a first.

Right, and poor Germany who mobilized because France talked the Czar into going to war, so France can get back that damm land they lost, much like the allies said that Hitler wanted to get back lost post Great War lands except of course France was on the “right side”, and conveniently after the war she could put any truth on the verdict of the Great War while enjoying Alsace Lorraine countryside.

The victors do make the rules and the truth because the result favors them.

Look up  Raymond Poincaré

[UN Spacy]

@Imperious:

Funny how in Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, these people fought Germany behind the lines, where in France they just served coffee and “collaborated” out of fear of reprisal. The mark of courage is to face death while struggling, not making pancakes for German officers.

Here’s a few things the French Resistance did:

They sabotaged production in war plants. They destroyed parts, damaged machinery, slowed down production, changed blue-prints
They dynamited power plants, warehouses. transmission lines. They wrecked trains. They destroyed bridges. They damaged locomotives.
They organized armed groups which fought the German police, the Gestapo, the Vichy militia. They executed French collaborationists.
They acted as a great spy army for SHAEF in London. They transmitted as many as 300 reports a day to SHAEF on German troops’ movements, military installations, and the nature and movement of military supplies.
They got samples of new German weapons and explosive powder to London.
They ran an elaborate “underground railway” for getting shot-down American and British flyers back to England. They hid, clothed, fed and smuggled out of France over 4,000 American airmen and parachutists (Getting food and clothes isn’t easy when you’re on a starvation ration yourself. It’s risky to forge identification papers). Every American airman rescued meant half a dozen French lives were risked. On an average, one Frenchman was shot every two hours, from 1940 to 1944 by the Germans in an effort to stop French sabotage and assistance to the Allies.

Serving coffee, hmm?

Brave means resolve to fight on elsewhere. If UK was occupied, they would have continued from Canada or elsewhere. But not France. One and done.

A few things the French did:

-The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany – from Normandy to Munich.
-Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
-Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
-They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of Allied lives.
-French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht’s crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
-About 30,000 FFI troops supported the Third Army’s VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spots ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
-25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from Allied commmand.
-When the Third Army was approaching the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
-In Paris, as the Allied armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

Some comments from generals on the FFI:

“General Patton cabled General Koenig, the French commander of the FFI, that the spectacular advance of his (Patton’s) army across France would have been impossible without the fighting aid of the FFI.”

“General Patch estimated that from the time of the Mediterranean landings to the arrival of troops at Dijon, the help given to operations by the FFI was equivalent to four full divisions.”

“The Maquis who defended the Massif Central, in the south-central part of France, had two Nazi divisions stymied; they kept those two divisions from fighting against the Allies.”

When they retreat and surrender who else can we blame? You cant make an argument that the French soldiers fighting are brave, while the generals order retreat. The result on the battlefield dictates the orders from “higher ups” The only thing you can look at is the result.

So, again, by that logic, we should blame Germany for being cowardly because they ultimately lost. There are instances where local French units fought and won tactical victories in the 1940 invasion, and the British likely would not have got out as intact as they did from Dunkirk had the French remnants fighting around the perimeter simply threw up their arms in surrender.

[Gargantua]

Hey Spacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2qFfuLy_fs&feature=related

There’s a bunch of French folk, insulting YOUR country, en mass.  Because they are french.

Consider yourself cordially INSULTED.

[Gargantua]

5000 + 35000 + 25000 = 65,000

That’s still 10,000 less than JUST the ones who LEFT HOME to work in Germany, and COLLABORATED with the Gerries.

Not including the pancake makers.

[UN Spacy]

@Gargantua:

Hey Spacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2qFfuLy_fs&feature=related

There’s a bunch of French folk, insulting YOUR country, en mass.� Because they are french.

Consider yourself cordially INSULTED.

Oh no, some rowdy sports fans booed. I guess I better hold a grudge against French people everywhere and universally hate their culture!

This is getting increasingly irrelevant.

[Gargantua]

Scandal widens in France, politicians extorted money from African dictators for years.

Sarkozy, the president of France, allegedly received millions worth of cash from brutal African dictators. Many of the dictators that recent French leaders are accused of extorting bribe money from make Qaddafi look like a great leader.

So much for being at the forefront of UN involvement in africa.  Everything France touches ends up like the oil-for-food scandal.

French self promotion, = international resent for france.

To answer your question, the title of your thread

“Re: Is there too much contempt for the French from A&A players?”

No, there isn’t nearly enough.

[Gargantua]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

And to top it off…

[UN Spacy]

@Gargantua:

Scandal widens in France, politicians extorted money from African dictators for years.

Because putting it in a bigger font is supposed to be more dramatic…somehow.

Sarkozy, the president of France, allegedly received millions worth of cash from brutal African dictators. Many of the dictators that recent French leaders are accused of extorting bribe money from make Qaddafi look like a great leader.

You haven’t even given a source.

@Gargantua:

5000 + 35000 + 25000 = 65,000

That’s still 10,000 less than JUST the ones who LEFT HOME to work in Germany, and COLLABORATED with the Gerries.

Not including the pancake makers.

So what exactly are you trying to prove here? All or most of the French collaborated with the Germans? Out of how many Frenchmen total at that time?

@Gargantua:

ancient jokes and one picture

So far in the last few posts, all you have posted is a YouTube videos of French Canadians booing, another post with unnecessarily large font with an uncited, alleged (as you put it) claim, and yet another posting a link to an ancient, overused joke sprinkled with some pictures depicting even more ancient French jokes. I’m not sure if you’re trying to be funny or witty, but either way it’s not contributing in any way.

[Gargantua]

it’s not contributing

Au Contrair!

Once you open your eyes enough, to see the things France has done in the last 200 years, And they way as a culture they have behaved, you will understand why the French see so much contempt.

[crusaderiv]

There’s a bunch of French folk, insulting YOUR country, en mass.  Because they are french.
And you probably found in you tube… US people insulting their own country, Canadian insulting their own etc,etc…what the heck???

[UN Spacy]

@Gargantua:

it’s not contributing

Au Contrair!

Once you open your eyes enough, to see the things France has done in the last 200 years, And they way as a culture they have behaved, you will understand why the French see so much contempt.

I never knew any culture was a single, monolithic entity and “behaves” in any certain way. I’m pretty sure living in the country for five years qualifies as “opening my eyes”. I don’t think sitting behind a computer and ranting about monolithic cultural entities and posting horribly old French jokes qualifies, however.

And no. It’s not contributing. It’s pictures and links to unfunny, overused jokes.

[Gargantua]

Spacy… would YOU paint hearts on your tank, before going into battle?

This last shot - so close to the barrel, appears particularily menacing!

Power percieved is power achieved!

[crusaderiv]

All that said however, I believe the worst of the negative french sentiment, particularily in north america comes from Quebec. � Their laws and regulations are particularily racist, and culturist. � The people and the governments they choose in Quebec hate on the military, hate on the federal nation, and hate on America, and this “Spit on their face” mentality is consistent.
LOL…wow…I don’t konw what you ate before to write this post…but if it was peanut butter stop right now please…your healt is on the line!

Go to a Montreal Canadians game, the fans mock any moments of silence for the troops, boo the American Flag, and boo the American Anthem, also refusing to sing our own.
Mock moment of silence?..never seen that but yes somes peoples boo american and canadian anthem and I know who…
Worn out drinking fans…yes… because Molson beer is far away better than US beer!!!

[crusaderiv]

Once you open your eyes enough, to see the things France has done in the last 200 years, And they way as a culture they have behaved, you will understand why the French see so much contempt.
You got a point on this one…in fact last 236 years…when France helped USA during independance war against UK. It was their first mistake. :-D

I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
Wow what a stupid reason…I have a lot of US friends and I know they won’t hang their hats on your coments!!!

[KurtGodel7]

@UN:

Right, and poor Germany was a victim of intertangled alliances in Europe all orchestrated the imperialist French. Clearly Germany was pacifistic and reluctant to go to war with France at all. World War I caused by the French? That’s a first.

Imperious Leader’s statements about France’s involvement in WWI were accurate. I don’t think that he was trying to put 100% of the blame for WWI on France. But it’s clear, and beyond reasonable dispute, that France deserves a significant portion of the blame for WWI.

As I’d alluded to earlier, France had had a strongly anti-German foreign policy for centuries. The Peace of Westphalia, which France played a large role in engineering, caused Germany to become divided into hundreds of small weak city-states. Over the next several centuries, those city states were gradually united under Prussian rule. Not coincidentally, Prussia was the German state farthest from France.

It’s worth noting that during the Middle Ages and 1600s, France was the most populous nation in Europe. But starting in 1800, the populations of Germany and England began growing at a much faster pace than France’s population. By the time the Franco-Prussian War arrived, Prussia had become a stronger nation than France. But France hadn’t yet adjusted to the idea that it was no longer the big bully which could push Germany around whenever it wanted. The idea that Prussia/Germany could actually stand up to France created a lot of resentment. The French felt humiliated, and wanted to get even.

After beating the French militarily, Otto von Bismarck offered the French a peace treaty. They refused. Prussia then proceeded to beat them up even more soundly; and ultimately forced them to agree to harsher terms than the ones initially offered. France was to pay a reparations payment; and Prussian soldiers would remain on the ground they had conquered until it was paid. Prussia/Germany would receive most of Alsace, and part of Lorraine. (Both of which were populated mostly by Germans.) France would be forced to recognize Germany as a unified nation, and would no longer be allowed to interfere in German affairs. (For example by attempting to keep Germany weak and divided.) These were the reasons for the intense French resentment against Germany. After the Franco-Prussian War, France’s foreign policy became strongly revanchist. It’s worth noting that the peace treaty Prussia imposed on France after the Franco-Prussian War was much, much milder than the one France and Britain imposed on Germany after WWI.

WWI was not due entirely to France’s revanchist foreign policy. The Kaiser’s diplomatic tone deafness greatly contributed to the war, and to Germany’s defeat in that war. In the late 1800s, Britain had been pursuing a foreign policy of “splendid isolationism.” Germany should have left that situation well enough alone. Instead, the Kaiser randomly alternated between dramatically focusing on Germany’s navy while reducing funding for the army, and randomly focusing on the army while reducing spending on the navy. During one of Germany’s periods of dramatic (and unneeded) naval funding, the British were persuaded that they could not maintain all their naval obligations around the world, while also defending against a German naval attack of Britain itself. Accordingly, they formed an alliance with France, with the thought that the French navy would take on some of the obligations of the British navy. Winston Churchill bore some of the responsibility for this error in British foreign policy. After forming this alliance, France drastically reduced its naval spending, on the theory that Britain would do most of the work.

Despite this alliance, Britain did not enter WWI until the Germans invaded Belgium. The invasion of Belgium represented another instance of the Kaiser’s diplomatic tone deafness. During WWI, the French and British fleets imposed a food blockade on Germany and Austria, leading to hundreds of thousands of hunger-related civilian deaths. In an effort to return the favor, the Kaiser enacted unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain. That unrestricted sub warfare was instrumental in bringing the United States into the war.

France’s quest for vengeance against Germany was as vindictive as it was unjust. But if France had powerful allies in that quest, it was because of the Kaiser’s own foolishness.

[barney]

wow!
quite the discussion
all I can say is the french I have met ,including french speaking canadiens ,were a bunch of arrogant pricks

[KurtGodel7]

@crusaderiv:

Once you open your eyes enough, to see the things France has done in the last 200 years, And they way as a culture they have behaved, you will understand why the French see so much contempt.
You got a point on this one…in fact last 236 years…when France helped USA during independance war against UK. It was their first mistake. :-D

I am against Francophiles who have nothing to hang their hat on in terms of any argument that France was among the bravest nations since 1870. They were not.
Wow what a stupid reason…I have a lot of US friends and I know they won’t hang their hats on your coments!!!

Let’s not get carried away here. In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, France fought a number of wars against the American colonies; including Queen Anne’s War and the French and Indian War. During the Revolutionary War itself, France fought against the British, as a means of weakening a nation which had been a French enemy for centuries. The alliance between France and the united States didn’t last long. By 1798, France and the united States were in a state of undeclared war.

And it’s not as though the French fought on the American side during all or even most of the Revolutionary War. The French force sent to help the Americans stayed on an island (and out of harm’s way) for most of the war, but joined in to help at the final (victorious) battle at Yorktown. That force spent years on that island, waiting for that one moment, while letting the Americans do all the fighting in the meantime.

[Imperious Leader]

Here’s a few things the French Resistance did:

They sabotaged production in war plants. They destroyed parts, damaged machinery, slowed down production, changed blue-prints
They dynamited power plants, warehouses. transmission lines. They wrecked trains. They destroyed bridges. They damaged locomotives.
They organized armed groups which fought the German police, the Gestapo, the Vichy militia. They executed French collaborationists.
They acted as a great spy army for SHAEF in London. They transmitted as many as 300 reports a day to SHAEF on German troops’ movements, military installations, and the nature and movement of military supplies.
They got samples of new German weapons and explosive powder to London.
They ran an elaborate “underground railway” for getting shot-down American and British flyers back to England. They hid, clothed, fed and smuggled out of France over 4,000 American airmen and parachutists (Getting food and clothes isn’t easy when you’re on a starvation ration yourself. It’s risky to forge identification papers). Every American airman rescued meant half a dozen French lives were risked. On an average, one Frenchman was shot every two hours, from 1940 to 1944 by the Germans in an effort to stop French sabotage and assistance to the Allies.

Serving coffee, hmm?

They did those things… BUT i can list pages of collaborations that occurred to aid German interests. Nobody is claiming that the French Resistance didn’t exist, but it was very minor compared to the acts of banality the Vichy Government condoned during occupation.

Quote
Brave means resolve to fight on elsewhere. If UK was occupied, they would have continued from Canada or elsewhere. But not France. One and done.

A few things some Free French ( with total financing by England) did:

-The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany – from Normandy to Munich.
-Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
-Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
-They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of Allied lives.
-French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht’s crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
-About 30,000 FFI troops supported the Third Army’s VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spots ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
-25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from Allied commmand.
-When the Third Army was approaching the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
-In Paris, as the Allied armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

They also fought against the Allies in Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, and Morocco.

Some comments from generals on the FFI:

“General Patton cabled General Koenig, the French commander of the FFI, that the spectacular advance of his (Patton’s) army across France would have been impossible without the fighting aid of the FFI.”

Oh quoting patten eh?

let me see….

“I’d rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind.”

• General George S. Patton

Quote
When they retreat and surrender who else can we blame? You cant make an argument that the French soldiers fighting are brave, while the generals order retreat. The result on the battlefield dictates the orders from “higher ups” The only thing you can look at is the result.

So, again, by that logic, we should blame Germany for being cowardly because they ultimately lost. There are instances where local French units fought and won tactical victories in the 1940 invasion, and the British likely would not have got out as intact as they did from Dunkirk had the French remnants fighting around the perimeter simply threw up their arms in surrender.

It is about who is brave. If you surrender at first chance when the capital falls that indicates a failure of national resolve. Stalin or Churchill would not have surrendered if Moscow or London fell. Germany fought on after Berlin fell. Only Italy and France took the “we surrender if capital falls option”. Japan if invaded would probably not surrender if Tokyo was lost.

[Red Harvest]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I will repeat myself.  The general anti-French bias is unfair.  It seems stronger in the US but no doubt it is due to France not falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy.

I wouldn’t call it unfair.  Overdone at times, but not unfair based on the history.  It’s a case of reaping what was sown.  It’s not the lack of “falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy” but the direct and overt attempts to sabotage it frequently that rightly draw the ire of Americans (and many others.)  France is an unreliable ally as has been shown repeatedly over the past century.  I recall quite a bit of swaggering by the French leadership about how they ran the EU and they would stop us from doing this and that during the lead up the Iraq war.

France’s strenuous efforts to undermine the sanctions without renewing inspections (along with their Russian allies) set up the conditions that made a pre-emptive attack palatable to the U.S.  If they had instead backed ultimatums or at least abstained from opposition, Saddam would have complied and the sanctions would have continued.  Instead Saddam wrongly assumed that France would shield him…and he was surprised by the outcome when it did not.  France, Russia and others were trying to end the sanctions, and that was producing a crisis where we faced the choice of:  1.  Watching the sanctions slip away (despite our efforts to maintain them) or 2.  Acting decisively to end the stalemate.  After 9/11 the first option was seen as intolerable for us.  Ironically, French “diplomatic” efforts were misguided in that they boxed us into attacking.

Public sentiment in the U.S. toward military action actually was strengthened by French opposition–something Saddam, the French, and others clearly didn’t understand and probably still don’t today, but was blatantly obvious to us at the time.  While there was noise in the final weeks, the decision was made months in advance when France dug in…after that it was just public show with the so called late stage diplomacy.  The reason for that was obvious:  time of year and logistics.  It was no longer a diplomatic issue, but a military one.  When you have a window and a given amount of prep time, you don’t let some sort of international political shenanigans close it.  After the ball was rolling anything short of abdication by Saddam in the final few weeks was insufficient to halt the attack.

While I consider France just as much to blame as Dubya in the run up to the Iraq War, I’m relatively francophilic and took quite a few French language courses way back when.  I had been making plans for some months for a family trip to France in the lead up to the invasion.  I cancelled because I really didn’t want the family to be there when I correctly projected the military action would begin.

[UN Spacy]

@Imperious:

They did those things… BUT i can list pages of collaborations that occurred to aid German interests. Nobody is claiming that the French Resistance didn’t exist, but it was very minor compared to the acts of banality the Vichy Government condoned during occupation.

This is getting ridiculous at this point. I’ve clearly listed just a few things the Resistance did to help the Allies, and you turn around and say “oh but also Vichy!” It’s the same baseless argument that if Vichy France was set up, that must mean France as a whole are cowards and not brave right?

They also fought against the Allies in Dakar, Madagascar, Syria, and Morocco.

Funny you mention Dakar, the Free French were part of the Allied attack on that city. Also, there was considerable confusion as to the allegiance of French colonies. The soldiers there, and elsewhere, had two choices: remain loyal to Vichy because it was the “legitimate” government of France (as you like to insist) or continue the fight against the Germans and join the Free French.

And again, also funny you mention Syria and Morocco, since French forces also participated on the side of the Allies in all of those instances. In the latter case the Vichy French forces scarcely put up a fight before defecting to the Allies, and this became full force with the rest of the forces in Africa when the Axis occupied Vichy France.

And again with this ridiculous reasoning. “Oh but also French soldiers fought against Allies, guys that must mean they’re all bad! All or most of them!” Strawman argument.

“I’d rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind.”

• General George S. Patton

Do you know where this quote comes from? No? Patton certainly held contempt for the French but he wasn’t as birdbrained as others and respected their fighting capacity, both in history and during that time.

It is about who is brave. If you surrender at first chance when the capital falls that indicates a failure of national resolve. Stalin or Churchill would not have surrendered if Moscow or London fell. Germany fought on after Berlin fell. Only Italy and France took the “we surrender if capital falls option”. Japan if invaded would probably not surrender if Tokyo was lost.

First off:

France=/= Britain, France=/=Soviet Union. And yes, Germany did surrender after Berlin fell. They only resisted for a few more days.

Secondly:

There was talk of continuing the war from North Africa, talks which was encouraged by de Gaulle but ultimately didn’t pull through. So again, does this mean we’re to condone every single Frenchman for the actions their defeatist government took? Are we just completely putting the Free French aside now as some minor anomaly?

Throughout all of this I have cited at least a dozen instances where the French Resistance and Free French fought in the interests of the Allies, and all you return with is “oh but look collaboration that means all Frenchmen are not brave!”. Talking about French politics in World War II is a complex subject, far more complex than your “us vs. them” mentality.

Oh yes, and I like this little tidbit here:

A few things some Free French ( with total financing by England) did:

What’s this supposed to mean? “Oh you can only be considered a real fighting force if you don’t take resources from any other country!” Guess Britain and the Soviet Union are cowards and incapable of fighting then, since they used resources from the United States.

@Red:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I will repeat myself.  The general anti-French bias is unfair.  It seems stronger in the US but no doubt it is due to France not falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy.

I wouldn’t call it unfair.  Overdone at times, but not unfair based on the history.  It’s a case of reaping what was sown.  It’s not the lack of “falling into immediate lock-step with US foreign policy” but the direct and overt attempts to sabotage it frequently that rightly draw the ire of Americans (and many others.)  France is an unreliable ally as has been shown repeatedly over the past century.  I recall quite a bit of swaggering by the French leadership about how they ran the EU and they would stop us from doing this and that during the lead up the Iraq war.

France’s strenuous efforts to undermine the sanctions without renewing inspections (along with their Russian allies) set up the conditions that made a pre-emptive attack palatable to the U.S.  If they had instead backed ultimatums or at least abstained from opposition, Saddam would have complied and the sanctions would have continued.  Instead Saddam wrongly assumed that France would shield him…and he was surprised by the outcome when it did not.  France, Russia and others were trying to end the sanctions, and that was producing a crisis where we faced the choice of:  1.  Watching the sanctions slip away (despite our efforts to maintain them) or 2.  Acting decisively to end the stalemate.  After 9/11 the first option was seen as intolerable for us.  Ironically, French “diplomatic” efforts were misguided in that they boxed us into attacking.

Public sentiment in the U.S. toward military action actually was strengthened by French opposition–something Saddam, the French, and others clearly didn’t understand and probably still don’t today, but was blatantly obvious to us at the time.  While there was noise in the final weeks, the decision was made months in advance when France dug in…after that it was just public show with the so called late stage diplomacy.  The reason for that was obvious:  time of year and logistics.  It was no longer a diplomatic issue, but a military one.  When you have a window and a given amount of prep time, you don’t let some sort of international political shenanigans close it.  After the ball was rolling anything short of abdication by Saddam in the final few weeks was insufficient to halt the attack.

While I consider France just as much to blame as Dubya in the run up to the Iraq War, I’m relatively francophilic and took quite a few French language courses way back when.  I had been making plans for some months for a family trip to France in the lead up to the invasion.  I cancelled because I really didn’t want the family to be there when I correctly projected the military action would begin.

Yet the French have fought with the ISAF in Afghanistan, fought in the Gulf War, and participated in the NATO intervention in Libya. I wouldn’t exactly call that “unreliable”.