www.ditl.org

KuvahMagh - Tsu beat me to it, but don't forget that the reason that the U.S. was otherwise occupied in 1956 was because we were busy baling the French out of their inability to hold and administer one of their colonial possessions (yes, colonial possession, even as late as 1956.) Try Googling "Dien Bien Phu."

As far as the Maginot Line - chill out. It was a joke I made based in the ineffectiveness and poor planning of the structure.

And I referred partly to the NATO withdrawal issue, partly to the refusal to allow the anti-Tripoli flights fly a straight course to Tripoli - even though nobody asked the French to involve themselves in any way with the action.

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.

Example of them being bad allies post 1990?

I have no love for the French after the Rainbow warrior but someone not doing what ever you ask of them hardly mkaes them a bad allie.

Teaos wrote:...I have no love for the French after the Rainbow warrior...

What, you mean when they forcibly boarded and sunk it? Greenpeace should invest in some environmentally-friendly deck guns...

It was in harbour with only one crewmen on board.

Teaos wrote:It was in harbour with only one crewmen on board.

Well, that's about the capability of the French military, right?

Though in all fairness we might want to tone it down a little. Sarko seems like he might be made of different stuff than what we've seen out of France for a while.

One can but hope. I want to be explicit - I will never "hate" any person or body for disagreeing with me or my country - in fact, I disagree with my present administration almost all the time. However, my point is that the US wouldn't back out of NATO command decisions with as much on the line as has been, nor would she disallow France to pursue a matter of state with which we weren't involved merel because France wanted to travel through US airspace to do so. I make fun of the French, but I make fun of almost everyone, myself included; my point has never been that the French are truly bad, merely that I happen to dislike the way that they had carried themselves in the '80's - '00's.

Mikey wrote:However, my point is that the US wouldn't back out of NATO command decisions with as much on the line as has been, nor would she disallow France to pursue a matter of state with which we weren't involved merel because France wanted to travel through US airspace to do so.

On the first point, if that were the case then why was the US so tardy in integrating its troops into the NATO command structure in Afghanistan? The main reason the US has been so in favour of NATO over the last 50 years has been because they run it. When a decision is made that the US doesn't like, the teddy comes flying out of the pram, there's much stamping of feet, and most of the time everyone else backs down because they know that without the US NATO is all but useless.

On the second point, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened - and I'm neither surprised nor all that bothered about the French refusal to allow the F-111s passage. Indeed, I believe that under international law allowing them overflight would have been as much of an act of war against Libya as the attack itself. It's notable that in 1999, after the Russians occupied Pristina airport, the US successfully put pressure on Bulgaria and Roumania to deny overflight rights to Russia, preventing them flying in reinforcements. Again, there's nothing wrong in that at all - but it does make any US complaints against France somewhat hypocritical.

Captain Seafort wrote: ...they know that without the US NATO is all but useless.

Interestingly, the answer to that is contained in the question. It's not logic I favor, but it is the way the world works.

On the second point, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened - and I'm neither surprised nor all that bothered about the French refusal to allow the F-111s passage. Indeed, I believe that under international law allowing them overflight would have been as much of an act of war against Libya as the attack itself. It's notable that in 1999, after the Russians occupied Pristina airport, the US successfully put pressure on Bulgaria and Roumania to deny overflight rights to Russia, preventing them flying in reinforcements. Again, there's nothing wrong in that at all - but it does make any US complaints against France somewhat hypocritical.

If I see chapter and verse which specified that allowing travel through French airspace legally complicit in the US' actions, I will concede and drop this line of reasoning immediately. The comparison with Pristina is somewhat flawed, however - France wasn't denying us ingress to a position within France, nor were we trying to attack or fortify a target point in France.

Taking these in turn;

don't forget that the reason that the U.S. was otherwise occupied in 1956 was because we were busy baling the French out of their inability to hold and administer one of their colonial possessions (yes, colonial possession, even as late as 1956.) Try Googling "Dien Bien Phu."

The US was not bailing the French out, they left in 1954, the US was the only power to refuse to the peace structure. The US did not go to War until 1963 after its own self appointed ruler of South Vietnam pretty much tanked himself.

As far as the Maginot Line - chill out. It was a joke I made based in the ineffectiveness and poor planning of the structure.

The portions of the line which received a frontal assault, as was intended held out well, the fault is not so much int he concept of the line but rather in that it was not long enough to cover entry from the Low Countries. Looking at it through 20/20 hindsight it is easy to say that it was stupid and ineffective but at the time, given France's mobilization capabilities it was not so bad.

If I recall my facts correctly (I do), we were only in Vietnam because of the French.

Only partly, the US entered Vietnam because of the so called Dominion Theory and the belief that if they did not stop Communism there it would spread to the rest of South East Asia. Not to mention that fact that the leader they installed turned out to be just as bad as the rest.

I'll finish up by saying that no one appeared willing to address America's own faults as an Ally since the end of WW2, particularly with regards to Suez where they actually backed the Communists.

KuvahMagh wrote:
Only partly, the US entered Vietnam because of the so called Dominion Theory

This is how we know he's a trekkie

KuvahMagh wrote:The portions of the line which received a frontal assault, as was intended held out well, the fault is not so much int he concept of the line but rather in that it was not long enough to cover entry from the Low Countries. Looking at it through 20/20 hindsight it is easy to say that it was stupid and ineffective but at the time, given France's mobilization capabilities it was not so bad.

Not just a frontal assault, but the Maginot Line continued to hold for days or weeks even when attacked and besieged from both sides. The problem was that the Belgians neglected to built their bit of the line, and France had neither the money nor the political will to extend it to the coast.

OK. Suez sitch - I'll address it. What exactly is the point that you are making? If the US boned out in that scenario (and we did,) how does that negate the scenario I regarding France, or anything else for that matter?

Viet Nam - nope. The US never officially went to war at all, but US military presence was there as of '54 and fully operative as of '56, specifically because of the overthrow of the French colonial gov'mint at Dien Bien Phu.

The Maginot Line - Did you have an ancestor who designed it? It not being long enough to be truly effective WAS part of the design concept - the length of a structure is essentially part of its design. Being effective except when it wasn't isn't effective. And yes, I admit full well that I am saying this with the benefit of hindsight, and it doesn't change anything at all. As I mentioned before... it's a joke. I am not the first person to make a joke about the Maginot Line, and I will be far from the last.

sunnyside wrote:

KuvahMagh wrote:
Only partly, the US entered Vietnam because of the so called Dominion Theory

This is how we know he's a trekkie

All I can say... Yep...

Ok, so that should read Domino Theory...

Interestingly enough, "Dominion Theory" can work in that phrase...