Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through February 13, 2003

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » Archive Thru March 2003 » Dude! i so hate the french! » Archive through February 13, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Absinthe Queen of Reviews (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 1618
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

IT's a TRAP! The potential terrorist jumps
in one in order to roll over some babies
and then the "boys" blow it up with a remote
detonator.
What war?
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 661
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 12:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Can anybody here who has an understanding of the use of military machinery shed light on why tanks are currently sitting outside terminal buildings at Heathrow airport in case of a terrorist attack. Are they going to use these to chase any terrorists? Are they going to use tank shells to shoot any terrorists they spot? I can see why troops with guns would be useful but what fucking good are tanks?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 796
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

And (he said with a manic energy that only comes from sleep deprivation) when you think about it, France is really poorly situated, from a defensive standpoint. It's got this giant mostly open border with the German forests, tons of coastline, and nothing but an Alp or 2 between them and Italy. I mean, you've played Risk. You can invade from like 5 different directions.

Id anybody should be embarrassed by how often they've been invaded, it should be the British and Irish, sitting out thre in the middle of the water...
Absinthe Queen of Reviews (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 1615
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Fer crissakes, the French get more flack for surrending than the Germans get for INVADING...




Nobody likes a quitter
Everybody loves a go-gitter!
What war?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 795
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 9:36 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

And, er, the Gauls weren't any more French than the Brythonic Celts were English.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 794
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 9:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

The Complete Military History of France

Gallic Wars - [...]

Hundred Years War




Whoah, slow down there, pard'ner! You're skipping the Merovingians, Charlamagne (the Holy Roman Empire being neither holy, Roman, nor an Empire...), and a couple of Crusades. Now, bragging about the Crusades isn't all that PC, but it was the FRENCH who established the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. And there arn't any Cathari around anymore, either, so the Albigensian Crusade goes in the win column as well.

Regardless, I'm still not clear why people are ragging on the French for not wanting to plunge headlong into a war which is at best questionable, and for that matter, what the history of French military success has to do with it anyway. It's not like military prowess is some kind of genetic trait. I mean, when was the last time the Macedonians conquered anything? And the Jews hadn't been a force to reacon with for close on 3000 years before Israel became a mini-super-power.

I also have a problem with attacking the French for their capituation to the Nazis. Um, hello, ALL OF EUROPE capitualed to the Nazis. The British were lucky enough to be on an island, and the Russians had geography, climate and a mutual non-agreession pact on their side, but STILL suffered STAGGERING losses. I wasn't in France in 1940, and neither were any of you, as far as I know. None of us have stared down the Wehrmacht, so we're in no position to judge.

Fer crissakes, the French get more flack for surrending than the Germans get for INVADING...
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 396
Registered: 12-2000
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The WWII stats I quoted come (more or less) from this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0816029717/qid%3D1001721645/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsr1%5F20%5F1/104-1251949-5671908

Most of the French combatants who died would have done so in May and June of 1940, during the battle of Flanders. They did indeed fight, but lost about a third of their army in the first 26 days, including most of their armor. A number of troops were evacuated at Dunkirk and went on to fight alongside Allied units later in the war. The remainder, outflanked and outgunned, can scarcely be blamed for surrendering when the alternative would certainly have been much greater loss of life, something ignored by those who abuse the French for refusing to rubber-stamp American foreign policy. Perhaps Lafayette should have just stayed home?

With regard to the Soviet losses -- the kind of figures quoted, with all those zeros at the end, basically mean that there was no practical way to count the dead except by comparing pre-war and post-war populations. Large parts of Ukraine were wiped out entirely.

I am not prepared at all to say 'tough' to the German civilian casualties. I can't believe those deaths were justified. Most of those people were not Nazis. They determined their country's foreign policy about as much as I do mine.

Actually I did undercount the U.S. civilians, for which I am sorry. 47 died, all in Pearl Harbor, and their names are here:
http://www.gonebutnotforgotten.homestead.com/Civilian.html

A lot of them were actually civilian defense workers, which is probably why they don't appear in some lists. The miracle is that more didn't die along with the 2,330 servicemen (about half of whom were on the Arizona).

The point still being, war is hell, and for Americans it is mostly someone else's hell.
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 549
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"And then we're supposed to believe that the Saudi government had nothing at all to do with it, despite most of the hijackers being Saudi?"

I don't believe that at all. The Saudis are indeed at the heart of the problem. Certain segments of the American press have trying to hammer this home; I don't know why it doesn't take. I'm not convinced that Saddam is anything more than a straw dog.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 658
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Perhaps if there was evidence a bit more compelling than has been presented up to now European nations may have taken a different position. We have the British Government's lame dossier (plagarised from a student's assignment written many years ago and referring to the Gulf War) and their previous 'evidence' which consisted of a recount of the publicly know attrocities Saddam committed (using material WE supplied him and continued to supply him after the attrocities). Then we have Colin Powell's grainy black and white photos of trucks and buildings and a dodgy sounding tape recording supposedly between 2 Iraqi officers. Now the latest 'compelling' evidence, a tape sent to al-Jazira, supposedly from Bin Laden, in which he refers to the Tora Bora attacks as occuring last year (when they happened the year before that) and where the US had a transcript of the tape before it went on al-Jazira (one could be forgiven for thining that this was at best an old tape sent recently by the US to al-Jazira).

And all this is supposed to somehow link Saddam Hussain to Bin Laden and convince us of the need to go to war with Iraq to prevent another September 11th attrocity. And then we have the weapons inspectors finding nothing at all, despite US intelligence suggestions that they know the weapons are there (well then tell the fucking inspectors where) and the fact that inspectors found nothing is supposed to make Saddam more guilty than if the inspectors had in fact found them. Surely the best inteligence sources in the world can come up with something better than that?

And then we have the fact that MOST OF THE HIJACKERS WERE SAUDIS, not one Iraqi at all (if there had been this would no doubt be 'compelling proof' of Saddam's involvement). And then we're supposed to believe that the Saudi government had nothing at all to do with it, despite most of the hijackers being Saudi?

Maybe this 'evidence' is enough to persuade the US public of this link between Saddam Hussain and anti-western terrorism but the European public need a little more to be convinced enough to drop bombs that will kill many thousands of Iraqi civilians. Only 11% (and that's a lower figure than a few weeks ago before Colin Powell's presentation) of the British public support a war on Iraq without full UN backing.
Barsnake (Barsnake)
le Vicomte
Username: Barsnake

Post Number: 138
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Complete Military History of France

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female temporal epileptic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does
most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English,
Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

and the beat goes on...
Mondino de' Luzzi (Drinkslinger)
le Duc
Username: Drinkslinger

Post Number: 154
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 9:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I believe the Professor was a maker of HG. He had to resort to coconut absinthe while stranded on the isle.
Absinthe Queen of Reviews (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 1603
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 8:10 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I thought it was 7 civilians
lost at sea on an
uncharted desert isle?
What war?
Pierre Ordinaire (Dr_ordinaire)
Paysan
Username: Dr_ordinaire

Post Number: 431
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 8:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"US losses in World War Two: 290,000 combatants and civilians. (Total known civilian deaths: 6.)"

Are these numbers right? I would imagine that there were more than 6 civilians dead just in Pearl Harbor.
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 545
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I won't pretend to be unaffected by Perruche's figures (although it would be nice to see some attribution). I'm especially surprised at the number of French "combatants" killed. What combat was that? As for the German losses, tough titty.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 789
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 4:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Last time I checked, Saddam wasn't planning to invade Poland...

Perruche makes the very good point that the US hasn't really SEEN war in 140 years. Sept. 11 was the closest, and that was only one day. It is a lot easier to go make wars on the other side of the world if you have no idea what war does to a country.
Gasspectro (Gasspectro)
Mousquetaire
Username: Gasspectro

Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 3:21 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

A,
That says it all.
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 543
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/57723p-54104c.html
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 395
Registered: 12-2000
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

US losses in World War Two: 290,000 combatants and civilians. (Total known civilian deaths: 6.)
UK losses: 305,800 combatants; 60,600 civilians.
USSR losses: 11,285,000 combatants; 16,000,000 civilians.
French losses: 122,000 combatants; 470.000 civilians.
German losses: 3,250,000 combatants; 2,050,000 civilians.

Opposed to war on Iraq: Russia, France, Germany.
Locked and loaded: US, UK.
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 541
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Just a Normandy tourist attraction.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 656
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The French and German government action is in line with the views of the huge majority of French and German public opinion. How dare they behave like this. Blair on the other hand is acting well out of line with the views of the huge majority of his own public's wishes, a true defender of democracy.
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 540
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Normandy
Deadest Elephant (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 539
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:07 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

There was a documentary on TV a couple of nights ago. The "guy on the news" didn't say shit. He let a lot of old French women do the talking. About having Nazi babies. When they were much younger of course. The Nazis were really just average guys. Polite. Considerate. Really. The old French ladies said so. Some old French men chimed in too, about how they were PAID to mop up Nazi vomit and brush uniforms. It wasn't slavery like everybody thinks. And all those villas "requisitioned" by the Nazis? Well, nobody was using them anyway.
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
le Vicomte
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 10:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Ha Ha! FROGS! They look like frogs! ...or maybe they talk like frogs... or, like, they hop away from danger like a frog. Ha Ha! FROGS!!!
Etienne (Etienne)
le Duc
Username: Etienne

Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2001
Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 8:48 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Cheese eating surrender monkeys!
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Vicomte
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 8:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

they totally won't do what i tell them to do!
that is so uncool!

yesterday this guy on the news totally burned them! he said they enjoy retreating! he said that it is because they are a bunch of retreaters! then he said their language should be called retreatese!

it was such a wicked burn!

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page