www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:After WW1, the British Empire changed its name to the British Commonwealth.

Were all the cool names taken?

Empires kind of fell out of fashion after WW1.

Mikey,

Teaos basically touched on it already, but I think most people do undervalue it. Either that, or they see no contradiction whatsoever between the French being essential to our independence and haranguing French for us helping them in WWII.

The Commonwealth didn't replace the Empire, as the two existed alongside each other for several years. As a rule of thumb, the Commonwealth originally comprised the Dominions, while the Empire proper comprised those territories ruled directly from London. Over time the balance shifted from the Empire being the larger body, to the Commonwealth, giving the impression that one was replacing the other. These days the Commonwealth is not synonomous with the old Empire - neither India nor the Republic of Ireland are members, while Mozambique (originally a Portugese colony) is.

Duskofdead wrote:Mikey,

Teaos basically touched on it already, but I think most people do undervalue it. Either that, or they see no contradiction whatsoever between the French being essential to our independence and haranguing French for us helping them in WWII.

OK. I personally harnague the French for currently being poor allies, rifle-dropping surrender monkeys, and for the Maginot Line.

I don't like the French because they eat snails... ew.

Doesn't apply to individuals, just the French in general (ie, I don't dislike individual French people, just as a whole).

From American Dad comes this great quote:
Wife: How's your French toast, dear?
Dad: Smelly and ungrateful, but this American toast is fantastic!

Its funny that some Americans insult the French and a sad commentary on their society when the Government comes out asking people to stop calling things french fries and such. It makes me wonder how you will ever be able to win in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, insert other tin pot dictatorship that is in Bush's Axis of People We Don't Like Even Though we Probably gave them the weapons they are using to kill us, these types of Wars require an ability to convince the general population to go along with you. This type of attitude is also completely counter-productive to the goal of forming an alliance, by doing it you only further alienate another nation who could eventually be your ally but is unlikely to do so after such attacks. America might be the current Superpower but let us not forget the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Greeks, the Persians... the list goes on and on. All of these powers were at one point Superpowers of their respective world yet they fell.

Let us also not forget that they refused to invade Iraq because they did not believe that these WMDs existed, boy were they wrong, they are a bad ally because they don't blindly follow poor intelligence and nonsensical ramblings, but hey, in America thats how you become President...

I agree with the lunacy of "Freedom fries," etc. However, the French have shown themselves to be poor allies in the post-Cold War world on numerous occasions prior to any Iraq-related actions. The fact that the current president has a post=presidency job lined up as village idiot doesn't mitigate that fact.

The way I remember it, the majority of the UN believed the same supposedly wrong intel.

I fail to see how incorrect intel involving one country relates to the worldwide Jihad against reasonable, secular thinking propagated by Islamic extremists.

PS - they also still deserve scorn for the Maginot Line.

Mikey wrote:PS - they also still deserve scorn for the Maginot Line.

"Ze guns, zay only shoot zat way..."

" What if someone moves quickly around the line and attacks from behind?"

*Hau, hau hau... Stupid amerikhan... no one will think to zimply go around! Zat is not ze way things are done..."


....

Before I begin this message I should probably point out that I do not agree with the Idealogical Jihad launched by some members of the Muslim faith in any way and do realize that the only way it can be combated is through conflict.

That being said, I think it is important that we as a Western Society with secular Governments understand why some of this started in the first place. Obviously there is no single answer but Western Society has been messing around in the area for a few hundred years, I don't know about you but if some people came over here and started interfering in what we did for 200 years, give or take a few, then I'd be pretty cheesed off.

Mikey wrote:I agree with the lunacy of "Freedom fries," etc. However, the French have shown themselves to be poor allies in the post-Cold War world on numerous occasions prior to any Iraq-related actions. The fact that the current president has a post=presidency job lined up as village idiot doesn't mitigate that fact.

I wouldn't say that, they were excellent allies when you needed someone else on the Security Council to help you go along with Genocide in Rwanda...

On a more positive note, France is in Afghanistan with 1,400 troops (give or take a few), clearly showing their poor ally status.

I suppose you are probably referring to France's withdrawal from the NATO Military Command Structure. In regard to that, the US was involved heavily in the Vietnam War and relations between Europe and America rose and fell throughout the period. The fact that America would largely abandon an ally militarily and even politically was proven first in 1956 during the Suez Crisis when France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt to reopen the Canal and were condemned by their ally, the US Government, who choose to side with a Soviet Sattelite Nation and again in 1967 when the US refused to back Isreal against nearly the entire Middle East because they were involved in Vietnam and couldn't be bothered to help, which ironically was started because of the failure of the 1956 Invasion which was partially torpedoed by the US Government.

I can hardly blame France for suspecting the same thing would happen if things went badly in Europe, especially considering that France had just fought 2 World Wars in which the US had sat out until the last moment before stepping in to help out. From that point of view I can completely understand their desire to be able to defend themselves without having to rely heavily on outside support which given the track record, probably wouldn't show up for 5 years.

The way I remember it, the majority of the UN believed the same supposedly wrong intel.

Which nations were these, from my understanding the big players on the Security Counsel did not agree, hence why the US was forced to invade unilaterally instead of with UN backing. On a side not, do you really believe the Intel was true and that Iraq was stockpiling massive amounts of Biological and Chemical Weapons, using big trucks driving around all day producing this stuff while building massive refineries required to make weapons grade uranium?

PS - they also still deserve scorn for the Maginot Line.

Sorry, I didn't catch how many troops you had in Europe at the time. The defences were outdated having been based on the previous War but what else do you expect them to base it on. Thats really like saying the US Military's placement of defences was stupid, they should have seen in their crystal balls that planes would be used as missiles to target civilian buildings...

They might have been better served by Armour and Air Power but given their population and general logistical capabilities at the time the plan made sense.

Well, I'm sleepy, so I can only catch two of these:

KuvahMagh wrote:I suppose you are probably referring to France's withdrawal from the NATO Military Command Structure. In regard to that, the US was involved heavily in the Vietnam War and relations between Europe and America rose and fell throughout the period.

If I recall my facts correctly (I do), we were only in Vietnam because of the French. (Vietnamese cuisine is still a fusion between asian and French).

KuvahMagh wrote:...do you really believe the Intel was true and that Iraq was stockpiling massive amounts of Biological and Chemical Weapons, using big trucks driving around all day producing this stuff while building massive refineries required to make weapons grade uranium?

No, I remember the fact that Iraq hid almost 80 jet fighters under the sand until the Gulf War was over in 1991 (then got them back up and running), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone found WMDs in some middle-of-nowhere desert 50 years from now.