About 1000 men

The French have been there when the US needed it and at times it is the French who could claim that it was the US who wasn't.

For starters, the US likely would have come into fruition much differently--more akin to gradual paper independence in a British Commonwealth with the official British monarch as its figurehead like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc--had the French not given key financial and military assistance to the US in its bid for independence from 1776 until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 where Britain formally recognised it. It was their help that gave the money and the naval and military muscle to help accomplish the independence. The odds are that it would have failed without their assistance.

A US/French monument at Yorktown.

France was allied with the US on many ventures. It was allied with France in both world wars. Whilst the US often claims that it liberated France in WWII, it had assistance in that from other allies.

Moreover, at the beginning of the war, it was France and Britain that declared war on Nazi Germany whilst the US opted for neutrality. Even after Germany had overrun both western and eastern Europe, the US still remained neutral. It was only after Germany declared war on the US--not the other way around--two days following Pearl Harbor that the US got into the war in Europe.

As for the often-stated allegations that the French were cowards in that fight that was not mentioned in your post, almost no military was prepared for the German and Japanese military machines early in the war. France did not have the live-saving water barriers that the UK and US had. Given the poor military state of the British military at the time compared to the Germans, it is widely acknowledged that the Germans would have also rapidly overrun Britain had the English Channel not provided the critical water barrier to the blitzkrieg machine. Certainly the Germans badly routed the British and their Commonwealth allies on the Continent up through their chaotic evacuation at Dunkirk. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans protected the US from both Germany and Japan. The American military was a small force until the nation mobilised following Pearl Harbor, and Japan certainly grabbed much of the Pacific, including American possessions, until the US could mobilise and build up to fight back.

France fought with the US in Gulf War I and quickly supported the US following 9.11 and sent troops to Afghanistan.



France could claim that it was the US who was late to Yugoslavia and have ditched UN actions and other international operations where it participated.

As for Iraq now, France was supporting the UN inspections that were showing that the WMD was not there and Saddam was complying. Bush ordered the UN inspectors out before they could conclude their inspections, but they were well along in them and were stating that Iraq did not have them. As it turns out, the US claims that there were WMD in Iraq were not true and the post-war planning was abysmally optimistic and/or poorly planned.

Given all of the above, I just cannot see why France deserves being called a bad ally by having made the right conclusions on Saddam's WMD threat and for not being so gung-ho for a war based upon wrong assessments and shoddy planning. This also discredited the judgment of the most powerful ally in the coalition that was not there beforehand given sympathies resides with the US and her allies following 9.11. Had Bush waited for the UN inspections to have concluded, it would have been shown that Saddam did not have the WMD, and allied resources could have been used elsewhere first such as Afghanistan and other threatres posing more immediate threats that are now taking advantage of the misallocation and mishaps.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

This why I wrote "I think he was sincere. Hard to proove, I know, but I can't imagine him backing the war 4 years ago."
Of course I may be wrong. Didn't he express his opinion in 2003 ?

Well yes, they obviously were.

Underwhelming is more accurate. But still, shouldn't you be ashamed of your nation that so many people were that dumb.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

But France knew that the inspections were turning up nothing. France knew the intelligence promoted by america was fraudulent.

Had France done the things you say, they would have been dishonest and fraudulent themselves. There were good reasons for SC not to sanction violence.

And besides, Saddam was compliant, at least to the point of not being a security threat. The inspections were verifying that. This was known prior to hostilities.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Sorry, they have to help us every time, not just most every time. Youre either with us or against us. France is against us.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Putting aside Iraq to avoid it engulfing my question and speaking as a general principle, why should that stance--which basically says: "follow whatever I say right or wrong fair or foul" make the US an actual ally, or worthy of being an ally, or in the right?

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

If you think like this you are not better than extremists islam.

About the vote itself: if I could have voted I would have voted Royal. Socialists have done many good things for European cities. Good social housing, spreading of immigrants througout the cities instead of segregation, the mixing of immigrants and native people in schools and providing good education and job oppertunities.

But now that I have heard Sarkozy's speech, where he said he also wanted to be president for the people who voted Royale, and he pledged for tolerance, a pro-european stance, cooperation with the countries around the mediterranee, I am confident Sarkozy will do good things for France. Lets hope the lower class can also benifit from his economical plans.

What I find a bit weird is that the French choose someone from the same party as the last president under whose rule the problems started to arise.

Since NATO has taken over I assume that is is in proportion to how many French troops make up the force of that organization.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I disagree. Iraq was not in compliance with its obligations under the cease fire agreement. Hans Blix verified this. France could have taken a tough, principled and honest stance and said, "We will vote to approve use of force to remove the regime unless Iraq can be certified as materially compliant by __/__/__." I'm certain the U.S. would have considered that helpful, and, indeed, it might have prevented the eventual bloodshed if Saddam was made to believe there was no way out for him.

__________________

First of all he was in compliance. Secondly Blix cannot make the decision for an ultimatum. He merely reports he doesnt make the decisions.

And the US refused to trust his report, because it was against their agenda, which had nothing to do with WMD, which were just a pretext (and a bad one) to go to war in Iraq

Because we are the good guys. Its that simple. This is entirely about Iraq and Islamic Fascism, something which France is doing little about. Even if they didnt support an invasion, Americans and Iraqis are dying by the thousands, something France could help out with, even doing so little as to simply say loudly and often that islamic fascists are wrong, and the world is right to fight them. They could get the UN to do something about the problems in the world, renounce the human rights violators, reform the organization. Such little things, but instead France chooses to try and recapture some of it once important status in the world. Again, this is why they deserve no respect from us.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Yes, this is precisely the point. What Sarkozy says in 2006/ 2007 was not what he said in 2003. Even now he says that the French were arrogant in 2003. Arrogant, what ? Because you speak out your mind. What does it mean not to be arrogant ? Besides I find Sarkozy extremely arrogant myself at times.

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

PAthetic.

When was the last time "Americans" died by the "thousands?"

Try the 1940s, in FRANCE!


LMAO