A European view of Canada vs. the USA
Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Bigboy @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:58 pm
PJB PJB:
Why are both Canadians and Americans so obsessed with what other nations think of us? I am Canadian and have never been to Europe and I doubt if I ever will. The governments seemed to be obsessed with external image rather than internal problems. The United States seems to want to be percieved as the gentle giant that brings peace and democracy to the world. Others perceive this as nothing more than a, almost religious, crusade to Americanize. Canada trys to be perceived as a peacekeeper. Granted some of the ideas that Lester B. Pearson had were well intentioned, the aftermath seems to have tainted his vision.
That being said. I am not overly concerned is some person living in France or Germany thinks that I am arrogant or whatever simply because I happen to live in Canada
That being said. I am not overly concerned is some person living in France or Germany thinks that I am arrogant or whatever simply because I happen to live in Canada
Trade, thats the only reason i can think of
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:08 pm
The French fleet was sunk by the British because they refused to scuttle their own ships after the Germans seized Paris and the Vichy regime took over. It is also interesting that when the allies landed in Syria (today Lebanon and Syria) they battled French troops, rather than German forces initially. Which explains the ease of the operation. The French were collaborators, the Resistance was a fable and the second largest ethnic group within the SS was made up of French volunteers (the third largest was the Ukrainians, those who weren't guarding the death camps that is). Why aren't these facts taught in the schools?
Tman1 @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:12 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The French fleet was sunk by the British because they refused to scuttle their own ships after the Germans seized Paris and the Vichy regime took over. It is also interesting that when the allies landed in Syria (today Lebanon and Syria) they battled French troops, rather than German forces initially. Which explains the ease of the operation. The French were collaborators, the Resistance was a fable and the second largest ethnic group within the SS was made up of French volunteers (the third largest was the Ukrainians, those who weren't guarding the death camps that is). Why aren't these facts taught in the schools?
What does that have to do with the topic?
EyeBrock @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:45 pm
Who gives a toss about the actual thread!
Bashing the French is ok by me!
Turncoat gits!
The Lumberjack @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:33 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Who gives a toss about the actual thread!
Bashing the French is ok by me!
Turncoat gits!
Bashing the French is ok by me!
Turncoat gits!
LOL
I haven't heard the "who gives a toss" expression since leaving the UK a couple of years ago - you made me laugh
I guess that it was difficult for the French. They were severely humiliated by the German war machine & Vichy was a way that they could separate themselves from the allies, yet keep some hope of rebuilding their nation.
I'm certainly not condoning what they did, many of the Vichy French were Anglophobes who hoped for the same humiliation upon the Brits by the Germans. Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain and his sidekick, Admiral Darlan ended up reaping what they had sowed.
I don't believe that the French resistance was a "myth." In March 1944, the German Army began a campaign of repression throughout France. This included a policy of reprisals against civilians living in towns and villages close to the scene of attacks carried out by members of the French Resistance. Entire villages were wiped out because of their sabotage etc. Easy to judge them after the event - I wonder, if the boot were on the other foot, how we would have dealt with the tension between passive resistance & actively resisting the Germans, knowing that our actions would result in innocent people being executed (including, maybe your wife and kids) as a result of that resistance?
Easy to judge these people in retrospect.
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:56 am
xerxes xerxes:
Hey Bart, have you ever read Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillian? You might learn some interesting things about the Versailles Treaty and each participating nations motivations.
No, I haven't read that. I have read President Wilson's personal letters and notes on the treaty and I've also read Winston Churchill's condemnations of the treaty. Fun reading especially the Churchill stuff - the guy was funny as all get out when you start to understand his humour.
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:57 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Who gives a toss about the actual thread!
Bashing the French is ok by me!
Turncoat gits!
Bashing the French is ok by me!
Turncoat gits!
Love it!!!
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:00 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The French fleet was sunk by the British because they refused to scuttle their own ships after the Germans seized Paris and the Vichy regime took over. It is also interesting that when the allies landed in Syria (today Lebanon and Syria) they battled French troops, rather than German forces initially. Which explains the ease of the operation. The French were collaborators, the Resistance was a fable and the second largest ethnic group within the SS was made up of French volunteers (the third largest was the Ukrainians, those who weren't guarding the death camps that is). Why aren't these facts taught in the schools?
The relevance to this thread is that some people suggest the USA should respect the opinions of other nations over it's own national interests and I'm pointing out that this is foolishness. The opinions of the French or anyone else, for that matter, are irrelevant when one's national existence is threatened.
No one here is apologizing for what the UK did to the French as a matter of national survival and, therefore, I stand firm that the USA does not need to worry about French opinions when we act in our national defence.
Bigboy @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:19 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The French fleet was sunk by the British because they refused to scuttle their own ships after the Germans seized Paris and the Vichy regime took over. It is also interesting that when the allies landed in Syria (today Lebanon and Syria) they battled French troops, rather than German forces initially. Which explains the ease of the operation. The French were collaborators, the Resistance was a fable and the second largest ethnic group within the SS was made up of French volunteers (the third largest was the Ukrainians, those who weren't guarding the death camps that is). Why aren't these facts taught in the schools?
The relevance to this thread is that some people suggest the USA should respect the opinions of other nations over it's own national interests and I'm pointing out that this is foolishness. The opinions of the French or anyone else, for that matter, are irrelevant when one's national existence is threatened.
No one here is apologizing for what the UK did to the French as a matter of national survival and, therefore, I stand firm that the USA does not need to worry about French opinions when we act in our national defence.
You gotta admit though that Bush has realized the US can not goto war basically alone long term, and the US alone can not win a war on terrism. Hopefully other countrys will start to work with the US more, and US will be more like it was in the past
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:51 am
Bigboy Bigboy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The French fleet was sunk by the British because they refused to scuttle their own ships after the Germans seized Paris and the Vichy regime took over. It is also interesting that when the allies landed in Syria (today Lebanon and Syria) they battled French troops, rather than German forces initially. Which explains the ease of the operation. The French were collaborators, the Resistance was a fable and the second largest ethnic group within the SS was made up of French volunteers (the third largest was the Ukrainians, those who weren't guarding the death camps that is). Why aren't these facts taught in the schools?
The relevance to this thread is that some people suggest the USA should respect the opinions of other nations over it's own national interests and I'm pointing out that this is foolishness. The opinions of the French or anyone else, for that matter, are irrelevant when one's national existence is threatened.
No one here is apologizing for what the UK did to the French as a matter of national survival and, therefore, I stand firm that the USA does not need to worry about French opinions when we act in our national defence.
You gotta admit though that Bush has realized the US can not goto war basically alone long term, and the US alone can not win a war on terrism. Hopefully other countrys will start to work with the US more, and US will be more like it was in the past
The USA can, indeed, do it alone. However, we were not at all prepared to take on the occupation of Iraq. Winning a war is easy, winning the peace is a bitch. Out of this matter with Iraq the USA will either reform it's defence policies or step away from the world stage with the results of the next Presidential Election. If a Republican wins it will be a mandate to firm up defence and if a Democrat wins it will be a mandate to cut defence and also to cut and run from conflicts.
The mid-term elections next year will be a statement of the electorate's support (or lack of) for the Bush Administrations' Iraq policies. We'll see.
Bigboy @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:57 am
$1:
The USA can, indeed, do it alone. However, we were not at all prepared to take on the occupation of Iraq
Occupation is part of the job, you cant occupy Iraq long term and win. Even American experts admit that. You need the help of other countrys to train a military in Iraq and get it so there better off now then before the war.
The Lumberjack @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:51 pm
Bigboy Bigboy:
$1:
The USA can, indeed, do it alone. However, we were not at all prepared to take on the occupation of Iraq
*cough cough* What, like Vietnam kinda doing it alone?
Bigboy @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:03 pm
SpitfireGB SpitfireGB:
Bigboy Bigboy:
$1:
The USA can, indeed, do it alone. However, we were not at all prepared to take on the occupation of Iraq
*cough cough* What, like Vietnam kinda doing it alone?
not really what i meant but i guess. but theres more differences between the two wars to compare them i think
Constantinople @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:54 pm
SpitfireGB SpitfireGB:
Bigboy Bigboy:
The USA can, indeed, do it alone. However, we were not at all prepared to take on the occupation of Iraq
*cough cough* What, like Vietnam kinda doing it alone?
*cough cough* We could have bombed North Vietnam into submission if not for pussy-whipped Johnson and the morons of the RAND Corporation.
Tman1 @ Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:19 pm
Wonder where this topic split into yet another military war discussion.
Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 Next