When the French intervened on our behalf during the Revolution...

[Postman]

did they have a puppet leader they wanted to install as President of the new United States?

My point being if Bush is truly interested in "freedom" for Iraqis, he wouldn't be pushing for Allawi to be President in Iraq.

This is nothing more than Saddam lite who follows orders from Washington.

[htuttle]

1. That intervention was actually King Louis' biggest ironic mistake

...At least from his point of view.

The debts he incurred supporting the US revolution (to get back at the hated English) had a lot to do with worsening the economic downturn in France that lead to the French Revolution. At least that's how I've generally read it.

As Nelson would say: HA, HA!

[Lautremont]

7. Admiral Nelson? n/t

[htuttle]

8. No

Nelson Muntz

[Lautremont]

46. I have to admit I knew that, but I'm glad you posted the picture.

The funny thing is, Admiral Nelson may well have expressed a similar sentiment in some Royal Navy fashion.

[Me.]

10. You're So Right

That support led to the French economy going bankrupt, and you know I don't think we ever paid them back, aside from "freedom fries" slaps.

[Sweet Pea]

13. You don't think...

June 6, 1944 is enough of a payback?

[stopbush]

19. Check your history, newbie. You might be surprised.

Contrary to received red-state opinion, D-Day was NOT an American-only operation. It was a true coalition of world powers. In fact, had American forces been the only ones involved, they would have been driven back into the sea and slaughtered. This isn't meant to denigrate our guys efforts, but to give credit where it is due, to France, Canada, The Brits and all the others.

Your post is typical freeper-think history revision.

You might be interested in this table that lists WWII casualties by country:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html

[TO Kid]

21. French efforts there were minor

The Resistance provided a lot of valuable intel but the heavy lifting was carried out by the US, Britain and Canada with a bit of help from exiles from the Nazi-occupied countries. But the direct military action was the least of it- without the economic capacity of North America behind the war effort, Britain and Russia wouldn't have lasted beyond the summer of 1941.

[w4rma]

33. Nazis *hated* France so France was one of the first countries that Nazi

Germany invaded. They invaded before the countries' leaders got their heads out of their butts to help one another. When France was invaded, the Allies were still trying to "appease" Hitler and Nazi Germany.

But France slowed the Germany invasion forces down so that others could rally (remember the Maggot line?). Many Allied countries were still declairing neutrality when France was finally occupied (including America, unfortunately).

The Republicans and the Bushes and other similar aristocrats here in America were pushing for isolationism with regards to WWII. They were also making lots and lots of money by trading with the Nazis. Luckily FDR was in power, rather than a Republican. I don't know if he actually ignored Japan's threats towards Pearl Harbor to let them bomb us and allow him to get us involved in the war, despite Republican objections. Maybe he did.

[tx_dem41]

40. Unless you are talking about Alsace-Lorraine....

France was one of the last countries that the Nazis invaded. I guess the Scandanavian countries were being invaded at the same time approximately.

But, if you look at it...Austria (not a true invasion but an Anschluss), 1936....Czechoslovkia...1938, Poland...1939, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium...and then France.

[ArkDem]

26. More pertinent D-Day

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/2004_dday_deaths.html

[Sweet Pea]

41. I wasn't implying ...

Old Timer, nor revising or suggesting anything other than responding to the comment "I don't think we ever paid them back". And I never EVEN implied that 6 June 1944 was a US-only operation. I happen to think, however, that we HAVE paid France AND the rest of Europe back with (and how many other European nations backed the nascent US back in 1780? You tell ME), according to your link, over 291,000 dead Americans, many of which are still buried throught western Europe.

I am well aware of Normandy and the true combined forces that cracked the Atlantic Wall, both invasion troops and airborne pathfinders, US, Brit, Canadian, French and Polish.. I think it can be safely stated, as well, that without the American contribution it never would have happened.

A number of nations contributed, you are correct. Estimates vary on casualties. Stephen Ambrose in his book D-Day states an estimated 4,900 casualties on 6 June from all the forces, totalling 175,000. Colonel C.P. Stacey in The Victory Campaign (Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Volume III) has causlties much higher, near 9,000, broken down as such:

Canadians lost 1,074 killed and wounded
Brits lost 2,543 killed and wounded
US lost 4,696 killed and wounded
http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/ddaycasualtyest.htm

For the French, simply because of the situation they were in and not having much to contribute from a manpower perspective: "...a few units of French commandoes parachuted in or landed on the beaches and held important points until larger forces arrived. Elements of the French resistance sabotaged railroads and German equipment to delay German reinforcements."
http://www.faqfarm.com/History/WWII/32324

Chirac seems to have appreciated the whole deal (quoted on 6 June 2004):

"To you, legendary heroes of that blood-red dawn of June 6 1944.

To you, children of the world thrown so young into the fire of war.

To you, admirable symbols of courage and devotion, of honour and nobility, of duty and supreme selflessness.

To you, on behalf of all French men and women, on behalf of all the heads of state and governments gathered here today and of all freedom-loving people, I express our gratitude, our pride and our admiration."

I won't get into alternative histories had the Normandy landings not occured or succeeded, which without the US leadership and hardware and participation they would not have. The Soviets were beginning a major push westward and it is interesting to think what could have happened to western Europe had they been liberated by the Soviet Union vice the other Allied forces. Even if the Germans had managed a defense against the Soviets through 1944 and into 1945, France would have still been under the heel of Hitler.

I also won't get into a pissing contest about who lost more or who contributed less. The Soviet's lost 20 million people. We didn't fight in our own back yard. It was a true global war. This whole thread started because I did not believe the statement "I don't think we ever paid them back". I do think the United States has paid France back for their support of the rebellious colonies back in the 1770's. My great grandfather is buried in the Amiens Battlefield Cemetery, Caix, France .

[Me.]

51. You're Quite Right

that the relationship between our country and France has always been reciprocal, which is why we have, up until recently, considered them an ally. But the wave of anti-France sentiment that swept this country and the derisiveness that came out of the halls of congress was disheartening. And this was because the French did not line up behind the WMD lie or our decision to attack a country that didn’t attack us. And while those bottles of French wine were being poured down the drain, so was a relationship between us and “Old Europe” that for the most part has served our interests well.

My basic thought was that if it wasn’t for the French we might not have this country of ours, which, despite the last 4-5 years, I still prefer above all others. The revolutionaries were determined and maybe they could have found other “one hand washing the other” help. But we’ll never know for it was, indeed, the French who kicked in the needed francs. And yes, our contribution to D-Day was magnificent, and, the appreciation, by the French and other countries involved, for that effort has never been disputed, to this day. It is also true that our relationship with France has been “testy” from time to time. But we always managed to repair any rips and tears, until now. Bridges have been burned and maybe too much sand has been kicked into the faces of other nations such as France. Anti-American sentiment is really beginning to heat up in Europe since our last election and we may find that having had their fill of WH bluster, they’ll turn their backs on us, and no one will answer the door the next time we find ourselves in a position of needing to knock. .

[pabloseb]

44. Wrong wrong wrong

The essential blow to the nazis was dealt by the russians on the east front, before D-day... of course, you can't expect that to be taught in American schools, but that's what all unbiased informed people agree upon. Although we must thank and honor all soldiers who combated the nazis, including of course Americans, the fact is the strategic importance of D-day was waaaaay smaller than the American education system and MSM would want you to believe(at least in terms of defeating the nazis, it did have influence on the power balance after WWII). But the red army did more than anyone else in terms of human lives lost and strategic battles won that anyone else... now does that mean that Stalin was a nice guy or, even worse, that the world owes anything to the current Russian leaders? I don't think so...For the same reasons, I don't think the independence war or WWII has much relevance to the affairs of world politics we're discussing now.

[stopbush]

17. Yes. He proved the dictum: never lose your head

pursuing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy.

[Me.]

29. Good Lesson

Here's another we could learn from their history:

“The neoconservatives are Jacobins. The neocons are the greatest threat America has ever faced, and they have the reins of power. Americans need to wake up to this fact and stop indulging their macho "kick their Muslim butts" fantasies and their "end times" Rapture fantasies.

The Bush administration is not establishing any democracies. It is starting a war that will last a generation.

That is the neocon plan. They have put their intentions in writing just as Hitler did. It is no protection that their plan is detached from reality. Robespierre was detached from reality, and that did not stop him. So were Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. People with power in their hands who are detached from reality are the most dangerous people of all.

The delusional quality of their rantings disarms people from taking them seriously: "Oh, they couldn’t mean that."

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050125_bush.htm

[Mojambo]

2. And 15 years from now (if the civil war has ended)

We'll consider him a grave threat to our security...

Perpetual war based on ongoing lies.

[cheezus]

3. I think it was to piss off the British

and maybe because they liked getting drunk with Ben Franklin

[JoshK]

6. This is basically right. The Brits were France's great rivals, so

anything that diminished the British Empire was a relative advantage for the French.

[liberal N proud]

4. I what little I know about the French involvement, it was more

of chance to slap England in the face.

[dean_dem]

5. I agree with you...

Allawi makes me nervous. I just remember Hussein was an ally too at one point. Allawi will become a US enemy too as soon as it doesn't serve our interests anymore. We've been down this road to many times to think this will be any different.

[theboss]

9. France didn't particularly care about "freedom" for Americans

It was a monarchy that didn't particularly care about its own people. What it did care about was costing the British soldiers, money, power, and prestige. On that front it succeeded.

[imenja]

11. the fact is, they provided crucial support for our war of independence

regardless of their intentions. We likely would not have achieved independence at that time without their help.

[theboss]

15. Who's denying that?

But the original post turns their motives into pure sunshine and benevolence, which they weren't.

[imenja]

16. true, all countries conduct foreign policy based on self interest

and only extremely rarely benevolence. Even then, they calculate that to act without benevolence would compromise more strategic concerns. Sometimes there actions produce good, like the French in the American Revolution or out own involvement in World War II and the Marshall Plan, and other times the results are tragic, like in Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran in the 1950s, and quite probably Iraq.

[TO Kid]

22. The thing to remember about global politics

There is no such thing as a friend. Allies help out only if they expect it to serve their own interests. A friend of mine once observed that in WWII the Soviets were not our friends and the only reason the West won was because our two most powerful enemies were fighting each other.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Allawi is worse than Saddam.

Brutal they both are, but Hussein did have diplomatic ability. He didn't manage to stay in power 30+ years without it. Look at the ass-kicking the Iraqis are giving the #1 military superpower the world's ever known. Yet Hussein kept power & relative peace (between Iraqis) for 3 decades.

That takes skill.

Allawi has NONE of that. He's a brutal thug, he's a traitor, he was a CIA-paid carbombing terrorist who blew up a bus full of children in one of his bombings, he's a liar (WMD within 45 minutes, guess who spewed THAT lie?) he's not nationalist and doesn't give a shit about Iraq, he's available for the highest bidder, and add to that, ALL the Iraqis hate him.

He can't keep peace or accomplish a damn thing now. He won't be able to tomorrow. Or next year. He has ZERO cred.

He can't step out of the Green Zone.

[imenja]

18. How would you feel about Saddam's running this country?

I in no way support this war, but the statement that "Alawii is worse than Saddam" is patently absurd. At the very least, Allawi has not had the opportunity to commit the kind of atrocities Saddam did through his long tenure. Remember, Saddam was on the US payroll too. The US also help put the B'aathists in power through a coup against a socialist government. The difference is the US has not yet turned against Allawi. It is quite possible they will do so in the future, or against whatever future government takes power in Iraq. Time will tell.
Just because the Bushes opposed Saddam does not mean there was anything remotely defensible about the man. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International have documented the fact that he killed countless numbers of Iraqis while he ruled. It's not necessary to downplay Saddam's brutality in order to oppose this insane and futile war.

[DrWeird]

27. Allawi's already committed a number of atrocities.

Including torture and summary executions.

I think it's patently absurd and ignorant to believe he's any better than Saddam.

[imenja]

39. rehabilitating Saddam does not help anti-War efforts

My point was that the fact Allawi has ruled a short period of time means he has not been able to carry out the numbers of atrocities Saddam did over his long tenure. The sheer numbers of people killed, and for here you can see Amnesty International and Human Rights watch, puts him significantly out front of Allwai in this regard. That is not to say that Allawi could not become as bad with time, but he has not been in power long enough to yet reach that number.
I will never understand why people on this site feel a need to defend Saddam--which is precisely the implication of Lynn's post.
It is the most bizarre and hypocritical position imaginable. We condemn Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the Patriot Act, and yet pretend Saddam wasn't really that bad. There is something profoundly perverse in that kind of thought. None of that is necessary to oppose the war. The war is wrong for a myriad of reasons having to do with our own government, the fact that it has unleashed sheer chaos, and that it cannot be won. Rehabilitating Saddam only weakens anti-war arguments. It does nothing to persuade Americans that the war is wrong.

[LynnTheDem]

31. You should tell that to the Shia then, that it's "patently absurd"

Go to google and put in "Allawi worse than Saddam"

And google research on Allawi.

A terrorist car-bomber; just what the Iraqis need.

In Iraq, he is widely referred to as "Saddam without the mustache."

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:cdbAADSY7CIJ:www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/headline.php%3Fid%3D585++Saddam+without+a+mustache%3B+Time+Magazine&hl=en

"Saddam without a mustache"

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/6887

Allawi's team worse than Saddam

http://www.siener.co.za/Nuus/Aug/040815IraqGoverment.htm

Saddam Sans Mustache

www.towardfreedom.com/sep04/sadam_sans_mustache.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-guma080804.htm

New regime faces claims of abuse as bad as Saddam's

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1455417,00.html

Born Under a Cloud of Irony

The new, free Iraq may officially be in the hands of a former terrorist.

When Allawi was first picked for the prime minister post through an opaque selection process ostensibly run by a U.N. representative, former CIA Iran-Iraq analyst Kenneth Pollack justified the agency's earlier use of Allawi as a terrorist with the comment "send a thief to catch a thief.' But the question now is: Do you send a thief to build a democracy?

http://alternet.org/columnists/story/19088/

Allawi, former Baathist, former agent for MI6 and CIA, former terrorist. This is an improvement?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292708.shtml

[imenja]

43. So what is your point?

For what purpose do you make the point that Allawi is worse than Saddam?

Since you're fond of web links. I suggest you look at these. http://web.amnesty.org/wire/July2003/Iraq

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-index-eng

Amnesty International has not yet released a report for 2004.

[ArkDem]

25. Sounds like the insurgency could use his explosive skills.

[LynnTheDem]

36. I've been wondering if they're already being used.

The Shia insist it's not them blowing up the Sunni; the Sunni insist it's not them blowing up the Shia. Hmmmmmmmm...

[yurbud]

14. a good post for free republic

[LynnTheDem]

32. Why? Do you think Freepers would care for some truths?

They don't like truth and fact & reality, far as I can tell.

[yurbud]

45. you never know. I've had some in my classes

and I know I've made an impression on a couple, by putting things in terms of their interests. "I want it to be easier for you to go to school, so you don't have to get another shit job. Arnold is making your life harder, and so is Bush."

[LynnTheDem]

48. Way to go!

Self interest is always a great motivator, isn't it, lol!

[yurbud]

49. self-interest gets you closer to reality and away from symbolic BS

[TO Kid]

20. The French didn't care about freedom

Supporting the Patriots was just another way to give the Brits some grief.

[DrWeird]

28. Neither does the United States.

nt

[w4rma]

34. The French PEOPLE cared. Not the aristocrats. Remember that the French

Revolution was BASED on the American Revolution. They have their own version of our Constitution and Declaration of Independance that were modeled after ours (I believe Thomas Jefferson even had a hand in writing some of their legal documents).

[Bemis]

42. The French were very impressed with this attempt

at a new nation. That is why they also left quickly after the British surrendered.

Had they decided to occupy this country until we had our finalized our government and had elections I'm sure we would have been battling with them as well.

[ArkDem]

23. We did the same thing with de Gaulle after WWII. You'd think

we would learn.

[TO Kid]

24. Don't get me started on de Gaulle

My country spilled a helluva lot of blood and treasure kicking the Nazis out of his country and he repaid the favour by shouting separatist slogans from a balcony in Montréal. Ungrateful bastard.

[Lefty48197]

30. They probably wanted to send Napoleon here

but the local insurgents insisted on George Washington.

[htuttle]

37. In 1776, Napolean was still playing with toy soldiers

He was seven years old.

[Up2Late]

35. This has always been the Goal

I think he was trained by the CIA:eyes:

[Jacobin]

38. Who did France support in the American Civil War?

I know that France and England were always on opposite sides of wars because they were historical uber-rivals.

I forgot which side France was on in the Civil War. My memory is that England was on the side of the South (they liked the cotton, and France was on the side of the North (since they would do the opposite).

Does this make Freepers feel better about France? Or not?

[Johnyawl]

47. To answer your question...

...neither.

By the time of our Civil War Britain and France had put their historical animosity behind them. They had fought as allies in the Crimean war against the Russians in 1854-56. Both Britain and France were beginning to feel a bit threatened by the growing power of Germany and the US, and were beginning to cooperate more to preserve their status as the worlds two major colonial powers. The governments of France and England were both officially neutral during the Civil War, but both were quitely rooting for Confederate success, mostly as a way of neutralizing the growing power of the United States. Yes, both countries were importers of southern grown cotton, but both of them had African colonies that were beginning to produce cotton.

Both countries, but most especially Britain, were limited in how much overt support they could give to the Confederacy because the population of both countries were heavily abolitionist by that time.

France did try to take advantage of the situation by attempting to colonize Mexico. While the Americans were too busy ripping the guts out of the country to enforce the Monroe doctrine, France sent an army to Mexico to install some Austrian relative as Emperor. The Mexicans waged a brave and costly guerilla war against them.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

50. France and Britain openly desired a negotiated resolution to the Civil War

Britain did have economic interest in the South (due to cotton), but the status of the Canadian colonies were more of a pressing concern. The British were happy to see the U.S. be otherwise preoccupied, as the British feared a possible U.S. war of conquest against Canada a la War of 1812.

When Lincoln made his Emancipation Proclaimation, both Britain and France broke of diplomatic relations with the C.S.A. and that was the end of Anglo-French diplomacy for ending the war.