|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 14 2003 : 10:08:20 PM
This message has been forwarded around, some of you have probably seen it.
Today it was reported that a severe earthquakes have occurred in 10 different locations in France. The severity was measured in excess of 10 on the Richter Scale. The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over in their graves. According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France. There are 30,426 American dead from World War II buried in 6 cemeteries in France. These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century. May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France! |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Private MacDougal |
Posted - April 29 2003 : 04:31:15 AM
With due respect, Major, all Marines trace our lineage to Tun's Tavern in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the birthday is 10 November 1775. Semper Fi...
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 24 2003 : 1:13:28 PM
That may be the origin of the United States Marine Corps, but most Marines trace their origin to Oct. 1775 when the Continental Congress first authorized the raising of 5 companies of Marines to accompany the first 4 ships of the Navy on it's first mission to seize a shipment of arms and powder on it's way to Boston from England.
Hooah! |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 24 2003 : 01:02:10 AM
That damned French Revolution again.
quote:
Two days later, the president signed the act that established the United States Marine Corps. On 16 July Congress appropriated funds to build and equip the three remaining frigates begun under the Act of 1794
The origins of a long standing American tradition; the US Marines!
Interesting article, Scott.
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - March 23 2003 : 7:10:59 PM
Regarding the French and their "support" during the American War of Independence:
Our agents were indeed highly successful in capitalizing on French enmity toward the British.
However, it was an uneasy relationship.
I'm sure I don't have to supply the reasons for this to LOTM fans!
What no one has yet mentioned is the fact that we were engaged in conflict with the French within a generation. And it had to do with that characteristic French arrogance:
quote:
France had been America's major ally in the War of Independence, and without its assistance the United States may not have won independence. But the new government of Revolutionary France viewed a 1794 commercial agreement between the United States and Great Britain, known as Jay's Treaty, as a violation of France's 1778 treaties with the United States. The French increased their seizures of American ships trading with their British enemies and refused to receive a new United States minister when he arrived in Paris in December 1796. In his annual message to Congress at the close of 1797, President John Adams reported on France's refusal to negotiate and spoke of the need "to place our country in a suitable posture of de- fense."10 In April of 1798 President Adams informed Congress of the infamous "X Y Z Affair," in which French agents demanded a large bribe for the restoration of relations with the United States. Outraged by this affront to national honor, on 27 April 1798 Congress authorized the President to acquire, arm, and man no more than twelve vessels, of up to twenty-two guns each. Under the terms of this act several vessels were purchased and converted into ships of war. One of these, the Ganges, a Philadelphia-built merchant ship, became "the first man-of- war to fit out and get to sea [24 May 1798] under the second organization of the Navy."11
In March 1798, overworked Secretary of War James McHenry brought before Congress the problem of his responsibility for naval affairs. Naval administration had become a significant portion of his department's work, as it had for the Department of the Treasury, which oversaw all the Navy's contracting and disbursing. The Department of War also had received congressional criticism for what was seen as the mismanagement and the exces- sive cost of the naval construction program. In addition, the growing trouble with the French induced Congress to authorize an increase in the size of the navy and raised the possibility that the navy would be called on to confront French privateers.
In response to the obvious need for an executive department responsible solely for, and staffed with persons competent in, naval affairs, Congress passed a bill establishing the Department of the Navy. President John Adams signed the historic act on 30 April 1798. Benjamin Stoddert, a Maryland merchant who had served as secretary to the Continental Board of War during the American Revolution, became the first secretary of the navy. One historian writes that Stoddert "was a classic Navalist" who "desired an American navy which could, not only protect commerce, but which would increase American prestige."12
On 28 May Congress authorized the public vessels of the United States to capture armed French vessels hovering off the coast of the United States, initiating an undeclared Quasi-War with France. That conflict led to the rapid passage of several pieces of naval legislation. An act of 30 June gave the President authority to accept ships on loan from private citizens, who would be paid in interest-bearing government bonds. On 9 July Congress authorized U.S. naval vessels to capture armed French vessels anywhere on the high seas, not just off the coast of the United States. This act also sanctioned the issuance of priva- teering commissions. Two days later, the president signed the act that established th |
| Ilse |
Posted - March 23 2003 : 3:44:34 PM
WW, as far as I am concerned, American France bashing is equally as irrational as French America bashing. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 9:55:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Hey C.T. Ranger,
Have you considered perhaps changing your avatar? He looks too much like Hans Bliz for my taste! Hope it's ok to insert a little humor here.
 Yeah I guess it does kind look like Hans Bliz. It's not the best pic of Homer Jay but it's the only one available. |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 9:30:57 PM
quote:
Hope it's ok to insert a little humor here.
Always, Theresa. 
{Bea, please thank Father Ebner & give him my sincerest regards. Also, if he would ... Sophia's scheduled for surgery this Wednesday. The whole shebang; nissen fundoplication (stomach/esophagus wrap) & a gastrostomy (g-tube). After a ENT exam, a barrium/swallow test, & a PH probe it's clear she's still refluxing too much. She'll be better off for it, and closer to home.} |
| Bea |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 8:35:22 PM
Well, my memory is just as fuzzy but Father Francis Ebner ( who still has the American citizenship) mentioned the same fact to me a few days ago..
Lainey,Father sends his regards and has been praying for your little Sophia.. Here is to hoping that the both of you will one day meet this amazing 87 year old man! He is still so sharp..
Ilse, he still remembers you too!!! |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 8:34:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ilse
Have some fuzzy memories here from high school history lessons, but didn't France support and finance heavily the American revolution? Would there be a USA of today without France?????
Yes, I believe that someone in this discussion pointed out the fact that France had been our friend and ally since the American Revolutionary War, when they did provide some help. They have been amply repaid with both money and blood.
That's a history of 225 years of friendship, without a break that I can think of... until now. That's why it has a tendency to sting a bit. |
| Ilse |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 7:48:29 PM
Have some fuzzy memories here from high school history lessons, but didn't France support and finance heavily the American revolution? Would there be a USA of today without France????? |
| Theresa |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 5:51:01 PM
Hey C.T. Ranger,
Have you considered perhaps changing your avatar? He looks too much like Hans Bliz for my taste! Hope it's ok to insert a little humor here. |
| Bea |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 5:35:30 PM
I am very glad that you don't keep silent and consequently create awareness that is desperately needed- and not only in the US.
Okay , so you don't wanna be a prez how about Prime Minsiter of Canada???? :) |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 5:30:09 PM
Two questions;
1) Regarding recent "French military debacles;" - how come the French fighter members of the alliance during the Persian Gulf *victory* doesn't make the list?
2) Would the "allies" have "liberated" Kuwait if they grew potatoes? |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 21 2003 : 5:22:27 PM
Stephanie, Bea, & Doc M -
Thank you for that. Not for *support* but for the rejection of keeping silent. (They say, don't shoot the messenger, but I don't know ...)
I don't want to be prez! I want to be free!
Steph, that was a great quote! |
| Stephanie |
Posted - March 20 2003 : 9:26:44 PM
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
---Martin Luther King, Jr.
and P.S. Lainey For Prez! Yeah!
Steph |
| Bea |
Posted - March 20 2003 : 10:55:11 AM
Yes, I know what you're saying, doc! I stand in awe of Lainey who is so incredibly gifted.I hope and pray that many posters/readers will indeed take her words to heart..How can one not????
Lainey, you should be president!! What a better world we would have!!
Right now I fear for all of us.. |
| Doc M |
Posted - March 20 2003 : 10:16:42 AM
I wish I could say you took the words right out of my mouth,
Lainey, but yours are more reasoned and thoughtful than
mine could ever be. My reaction has been more to wave
my gnarly old fist at the television and scream every foul
word I know...which is a looooong list. I hope that
everyone on this Board, whether they agree or disagree
with you, reads your post with the thoughtfulness and
depth of feeling that it deserves. The brave young men
and women that we send so blithely into harm's way deserve
at the very least a righteous cause, and this ain't it.
And it sickens me that people so easily use the men and
women who died in 9/11 to justify this farce. Bring me the
head of Osama Bin Laden on a pole, and I'll be the first to
cheer. Go after al-Quaeda with every elite force you can
muster and wipe them out. But to bomb a country which has
practically been reduced to the stone age already in
the name of Truth, Justice and the American Way?
It's madness, and I'll have none of it.
Doc M
PS "Puff adders"????? I LOVE it!! Thanks, Lainey!!!
|
| Lainey |
Posted - March 20 2003 : 12:40:32 AM
The author of the message not only watered down the importance of the allies' sacrifices, he implied there were none. He went on to say:
These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century. May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France!
That's a pretty strong condemnation to lay on a country that is guilty, not of shameful unspeakable behavior, but of diplomatically & eloquently resisting, through its UN membership in the International Security Council, the United States-British move to wage an illegal, unjustified, deadly war against a country that has all but been brought to its knees in the past 12 year long war of attrition. France is guilty of resisting the transparent attempts by these two countries to propagandize through UN Resolutions (none of which had authorized force) & attempt through coercion a claim of world opinion. They didn't gain the submission of nations & when it was certain they never would, they abandoned the campaign of pretense (the hope was to get a few impoverished cash needy countries to prop up the empire builders, but the final tally still proved embarrassingly slim) arrogantly brushed aside the UN, the Security Council, the Resolutions they so reverently adored, & the international community, behaving as rogue states themselves. The subsequent OK Corral 'Get out of town or else!' was pathetically hokey & unworthy of a head of state. The litany of lies to the American people uttered in that speech (Al Qaeda links, terrorist links, imminent threat to the US, possession of WMDs ... for shame) is, in light of the WMDs about to be rained down upon the city of Baghdad (3000 bombs in the first 24 hours would certainly qualify as WMDs), unforgiveable.
What was meant by finding forceful ways to deal with "Godforsaken" France? Shock & Awe??? Liberation??? Occupation? Regime change?
I don't think Americans need reminders about Americans sacrificing for France. It's become the American creed, recited faithfully wherever two or more gather. But what does it mean? Does France OWE US administrations a pound of flesh? Blind loyalty even when the US is dead wrong? Respect? The US, like all nations, must earn respect, not demand it. Currently, this country has neither respect nor credibility. It only has fear due a sole supra-power that seeks to pound the world into submission. Could it be that France likes American Apple Pie alright but doesn't like little green worms? But we demand loyalty for friendship's sake ... to paraphrase St. Thomas More, 'Will you accompany us to hell - for friendship's sake?'
Many Americans do feel frustration & hostility towards France for not supporting the war mode. But there was no spontaneous swelling of grassroots anger. No, the anger has a great deal to do with our tendency to keep 'repeat after me' habits. If pundits & talking heads tell us we ought to be outraged at France's opposition then, by golly, we're gonna be outraged. As primetime apers masquerading as anchormen sit there sneering, eye brows raised, hissing like puff adders while they "investigate" France's "ulterior motives" for being "pro-Saddam," they shock us with revelations about business deals. No shit, Sherlock! We've ALL been selling & dealing & cheating & stealing. In fact, it could be said that IRAQ wouldn't be the nation it is today if not for the US. Instead of analyzing the administration's claim that 1+1=5, we busy our minds with indignant & haughty reaction. To what?! A veto option that exists to be used when deemed appropriate? This is anti-Americanism? The dozens & dozens of vetoes on the part of the US now should be revisited - just so other nations, particularly European nations, might have their enlightened opportunity to realize it was really all about anti-Fre |
| Bea |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 9:29:25 PM
Found this on the AFSA website..
A Nearly Perfect Relationship
At the outset of the Cold War, as communism threatened the West, Germany, the former enemy, quickly became a primary ally of the U.S. for several reasons. First, as long as "hard" issues like military security dominated the American foreign policy agenda, the strategic value of a German bastion could scarcely be denied. Second, American political leadership of the time was naturally oriented toward Europe. The three immediate postwar presidents had all had personal European experience: Harry Truman as an artillery captain in World War I, Dwight Eisenhower as supreme commander of the allied forces in World War II, and John F. Kennedy as the college-age son of Franklin Roosevelt's ambassador to London. Policy-making was in the hands of "wise men," charter members of the East Coast establishment such as Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles and John McCloy, many of them with links to Germany going back to the 1920s or 1930s. And foreign policy leaders weren't the only Americans with personal connections to Germany: As late as 1960, Germans ranked number one among groups of foreign-born Americans. The America of the time was still a country of immigrants from Europe who supported American engagement there.
But most critically, the U.S. and Germany quickly became allies because their vital interests coincided almost seamlessly. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, no American president could contemplate "losing" Germany to communism. The Federal Republic was central to U.S. policy-making in the 1950s and early 1960s for one simple reason: It was, until Vietnam, the chief battleground in America's worldwide struggle against communism.
Following the communist power grabs in Europe in the late 1940s, the North Korean invasion of the south in 1950 raised concern in Washington. Americans worried that North Korea's attack of the south was but a prelude, that East Germany might be a similar staging area from which an invasion would be launched against the weak American, British and French armies occupying West Germany. The American strategists' conclusion? German soldiers and industrial power were needed immediately if an effective defense were to be mounted against such danger. Accordingly, the United States quickly forgave Germany for its Nazi past and became the principal champion of West Germany's rehabilitation, encouraging it to rearm and ally itself with the United States.
This policy accorded with the Wilsonian missionary strain in American foreign policy. It appealed to Americans' desire to feel good about U.S. undertakings abroad; Americans were pleased with the thought that West Germany had been redeemed from pride and sin by American Marshall Plan generosity and transformed into democracy thanks to American re-education and influence in framing its new constitution. With American patronage, West Germany became a member of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1955, and with American encouragement, it joined France, Italy, and the Benelux countries in the European Community (later the European Union) two years later.
During the Cold War the Federal Republic was dependent on the United States for protection. As many as 250,000 American troops were stationed at times in Germany, far more than anywhere else abroad. Not permitted nuclear weapons and with its army integrated into NATO's operational structures, West Germany could not contemplate, much less carry out, any independent military action. Its NATO and European Community memberships constrained it politically as well. Berlin was held in trusteeship for Germany by the Americans, British, and French, giving the trio much potential leverage in German politics.
|
| Bea |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 7:26:38 PM
My dad ( who is German and still resides in Hanau) would tell you a different story regarding US- German relations..:)And BTW Americans didn't occupy all of Germany as it was divided in numerous sectors..Once the war was over Americans did not act like conquerors ( thank God for that) but were indeed very kind with providing the people with CARE packages. My father still remembers the peanut butter, soups etc. and once Germany was rebuilt the ties were indeed very close..For many German civilians the American soldiers were/are liberators, freeing them from a horrible dictator.
However, I 'd like to point out that my post wasn't meant to invite any jokes about Germany or Belgium..Just thought I'd clarify that as I don't want to come across the wrong way..
Yes, I hope that once everything has been resolved the Iraqis will be well provided for. I also pray that Iraqi civilians will be spared. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 6:42:10 PM
"I am sorry, but the US has just as close ties with the Germans ! There are even US troops still stationed in Germany ( the town I was born in being one of them), yet people aren't up in arms about the Germans and Belgians!!"
I meant to address this in my previous post. So why aren't Americans so upset about the German position? I believe part of it is because the U.S. doesn't have the same tradition of alliance and support with Germany as we do with France. The U.S. fought the Germans in both World Wars, not to mention the American Revolution (where France supported us). The Germans were our enemies not allies for almost half the 20th century. The only reason we have close ties with Germany and military bases there is because we have been occupying west Germany as conquerers and an occupying force through the cold war, and we rebuilt their nation after WWII with the Marshall plan. Maybe we don't expect as much from Germany. Hopefully we'll be able to come up with the equivelent of the Marshall plan for Iraq after the war is over. And may it be over soon! |
| Theresa |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 6:10:51 PM
Somewhere in France
Oct. 3, 1944
Dear Lottie,
I received your letter a few days ago and was sure glad to hear from you again. How are you and the rest of your folks getting along by now? As for me I'm doing just fine but plenty anxious to get this war over with and get back to the states again. I have traveled quite a long ways since I wrote you last and we have seen a good bit of France and maybe will get a look at Germany one of these days. Coming through France the people were pretty nice to us and seemed very happy to see us but the closer to Germany we get the less friendly they are....Well Lottie this isn't much news so I'll quit for now....Love L.C. |
| Bea |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 6:10:06 PM
>>But France and the U.S. have a history of support and friendship, and that's what made it disapointing to see the anti-U.S. protests made by many of the French people and the anti-U.S. stance taken by the gov't.<<<<
I am sorry, but the US has just as close ties with the Germans ! There are even US troops still stationed in Germany ( the town I was born in being one of them), yet people aren't up in arms about the Germans and Belgians!!
Perhaps I have a bit of an advantage as I grew up for half of my life in Europe which has provided me with an understanding of the European and North American mentality..
Anyway, let's hope and pray that this war will be brief and without too much bloodshed! These are scary times.. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 5:28:23 PM
"IMHO I didn't see any disrespect whatsoever and let's keep in mind that more than one nation had a veto in mind."
Yep, France wasn't the only nation to object to war. But France and the U.S. have a history of support and friendship, and that's what made it disapointing to see the anti-U.S. protests made by many of the French people and the anti-U.S. stance taken by the gov't. It's not the anti-war stance that's disrespectful, it's the anti-U.S. attitude of many of the French citizens and gov't offials that's disrespectful.
"As Ilse pointed out correctly it wasn't only Americans who liberated the BENELUX countries but also brave Canadian and British soldiers. Remember Dieppe??"
For sure! That's what I meant in reference to the 95,000 "pals". The British soldiers early in the war were known as "pals" because everyone signed up with their pals from their schools and neighborhoods, which had dreadful results. The Brits, Canadians, ANZACs, Russians in the French army, Belgians all played an important part, but they couldn't defeat the Germans and Austro-Hungarians on their own. By 1917 the Allies needed the U.S. to join the war, and it's doubtful they would have been able to hold back the German offensive of 1918 without that extra bit of U.S. support.
Yeah, it is somewhat understandable for the French gov't to be against war. If you look at the military history of France it's dominated by one debacle after another. Franco-Prussian, WWI,WWII, Vietnam, to name a few. |
| Bea |
Posted - March 19 2003 : 3:17:29 PM
France was a nation well before the US was founded and thus building her own histoire, mon cher ami! All nations are prone to mistakes, n'est-ce pas? IMHO I didn't see any disrespect whatsoever and let's keep in mind that more than one nation had a veto in mind.
During my visit in the eighties I saw many graveyards and monuments well kept dedicated to the fallen US soldiers and just because France is exercising her democratic right doesn't mean that she is disrespectful to the ALLIES that have fought WITH them. As Ilse pointed out correctly it wasn't only Americans who liberated the BENELUX countries but also brave Canadian and British soldiers. Remember Dieppe??
And perhaps we might also want to keep in mind that countries like France, Germany, Belgium and Holland have been through wars, know the terrible consequences, the sufferings. Why would they want to see another one?
Ask the old vets.. |
|
Around The Site:
~ What's New? ~
Pathfinding
|
Mohican Gatherings
|
Mohican Musings
|
LOTM Script
|
History
|
Musical Musings
|
Storefronts on the Frontier
Off the Beaten Trail
|
Links
Of Special Interest:
The Eric Schweig Gallery
|
From the Ramparts
|
The Listening Room
|
Against All Odds
|
The Video Clips Index
DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
 |
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.2 seconds |
 |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
