Things we don't know about

[Meat]

Was talking to an Englishman yesterday and we got to talking about Bush going into Iraq with England the only country by his side. This guy was in the English Navy and he told me something very surprising. England, France and Israel were once aligned to go to war with Egypt over the Suez Canal, and America stepped in and said 'No you don't.' This was 1971, so it had to be Nixon.

He was telling me this because I was all over France for never backing us the way England does. He said America has done the same to France a time or two back in the day.

[ncbobcat]

Going to war over a canal is igorant, but calling on your allies in not one or two, but THREE wars that they couldn't get done themselves is not insignificant. Yet, they treat Americans as if we are scum... inferior at the very least. Only the old timers are greatful for the American sacrifices of the two "Great" wars. I have yet to hear a Frenchy thank us for the sacrifices of Vietnam. Oh yeah, that's probably because their little colony wasn't retained.

I still loath the French...

[Fiz]

so is this a secret or were you trying to have a conversation about the suez canal crisis in 1956 which involved france, england, and israel without the backing of the united states because eisenhower had just made a big stink about the soviet union invading czechoslovakia like a week before and didn't want to look like a dick

or are you severely misinterpreting egypt publicly stating that they would be open with peace talks with israel (which eventually happened) if Egypt would give back all the land they illegally took in 1967

i mean the only thing that britain has done by itself since 1956 was the slaughter of some unarmed mua mua and blowing up some Argentineans on a penguin covered rock. all france did was give up their colonies and turn a blind eye to some dead rwandans

[Davidson Deac II]

Originally Posted by Meat

Was talking to an Englishman yesterday and we got to talking about Bush going into Iraq with England the only country by his side. This guy was in the English Navy and he told me something very surprising. England, France and Israel were once aligned to go to war with Egypt over the Suez Canal, and America stepped in and said 'No you don't.' This was 1971, so it had to be Nixon.

He was telling me this because I was all over France for never backing us the way England does. He said America has done the same to France a time or two back in the day.

Actually, it was 1956. And the British and French didn't actually tell us they were going in until it happened. Ike's anger was understandable.

Suez crisis

[Fiz]

Originally Posted by ncbobcat

but THREE wars that they couldn't get done themselves is not insignificant.

which wars?

ww1 was over by the time the united states entered

surely you don't mean ww2, in which the government would have collapsed the second the wermacht crossed over the Rhine.

the french government was sacked after dien bet phu, and no one cared about it anymore because of what was going on in algeria. they were going to pull out regardless because there was no domestic support anymore.

Yet, they treat Americans as if we are scum... inferior at the very least.

this is a complete falsehood. The french generally have a different demeanor than Americans do. We have entire politicians who make a career about damning people in this country who don't speak our unofficial goat language we stole from the germans. Why should they be kind to american tourists, notoriously the second worst nationality of tourists in the world (damn you british) who don't speak un mot francais?

Only the old timers are greatful for the American sacrifices of the two "Great" wars.

no one gives a poo about world war 1 because every country besides the united states teaches their kids that the war was basically over, and even if the US hadn't entered it would have ground to a halt. 60 years of imperial belligerence have kinda eroded any good feelings there might have been. And plenty of the old timers still remember the rape and pillage party american soldiers threw in normandy.

I have yet to hear a Frenchy thank us for the sacrifices of Vietnam. Oh yeah, that's probably because their little colony wasn't retained.

considering they were busy giving away all their colonies and the government elected after DBP came into power promising to get them out, I really doubt they care. Certainly no one born past 1950 cares.

[Jangler]

If WW1 was almost over when the US got involved, why did so many soldiers die and get injured?

The total lives that were given while in service of World War I is 116,516. Deaths in battles: 53,402. Deaths in other situations: 63,114. Non-fatal wounds:204,002.

Sure seems like a lot, for something that was almost over.

[88 Bronco]

Originally Posted by Jangler

If WW1 was almost over when the US got involved, why did so many soldiers die and get injured?




Sure seems like a lot, for something that was almost over.

Because Fiz said it was god damn it!

[Fiz]

Originally Posted by Jangler

If WW1 was almost over when the US got involved, why did so many soldiers die and get injured?




Sure seems like a lot, for something that was almost over.

because it was a terrible war using weapons that had never been seen that had ground to a stalemate.

only zap brannigan equates military success with lives lost

[88 Bronco]

Originally Posted by Fiz

because it was a terrible war using weapons that had never been seen that had ground to a stalemate.

only zap brannigan equates military success with lives lost

But I would say that's a lot of lives lost for a war that was over. Sounds like you're using Bush's gauge for victory.

[ncbobcat]

WWI--was NOT over, actually it was at a stalemate, but wasn't over. The U.S. actually hastened the end of WWI.

WWII--had the U.S. not got involved in Europe, Hilter could have devoted more resources to the eastern front and possibly defeated the Soviets, thereby, refocusing on the Western front and finished of the British (not to mention the scant pockets of French resistance groups).

Vietnam--Even if the French had given up on THEIR colony, they could have at least stuck around to help out the mess, THEY started by not giving the people thier independence sooner in the 1950's when the situation was festering. Who knows if the U.S. would have gotten invloved at a later point if the once-colony was liberated earlier. I would say maybe, but if the country was stable prior to the mid-sixties, I doubt our government would have intervened in a country that peacefully turned pro-communist. Again, without the revolt versus the French, we don't know if the North Vietnamese would have been such a cohesive fighting force a decade or more on into the 1960s.

Actually, I was very good friends with a foreign exchange student from France in college and he concurred the sentiment that France, as a whole, feels superior to the U.S. We just have a more mighty military. When he wasn't gloating about France, he was actually a cool dude.