I'm tired of the french bashing

Sure thing greyrock..
Too bad you're using the rock for a head.


"Greylock" wrote in message
...

Your delusional if you think anyone gives a **** what you think, or
even IF you think.


On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:55:09 -0600, "D.A. Tsenuf"
wrote:

You're a paranoid twit who imagines that If one doesn't constantly suck
up
to Americans then they're forcibly "American-Haters".
You suffer from delusions of grandeur..
Get help.

"Greylock" wrote in message
news

It was aimed for the American lines because they were very lightly
held. They were very lightly held because the general staff didn't
think the Germans could launch an armored attack through the heavy
forest in the area.

But you knew that didn't you?

Is there no lie you pathetic American haters will not stoop to?

That kind of behavior just serves to reinforce the feeling that your
kind really do have a world-class inferiority complex and are shooting
blanks trying to come up with excuses.





On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:13:31 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:

Ian Phillips wrote:

Interesting but we all know the war was won by heroic Canadian
forces
who
kept the UK going against overwhelming odds!
Vive Le Canada!

There is a lot of truth to that. Canadian troops were responsible for
most of
the Allied victories along battle lines of WW I, and held the lines
after the
French were driven off by the first gas attacks. They also did most
of
the
heavy fighting through Sicily, Italy, Holland and many other places.
It
is no
coincidence that the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge aimed
for the
American lines.



"Greylock" wrote in message
...

All the French Government (as contrasted with the French people)
has
to do is quit trying to knife the US in the back at every
opportunity.

But until they do - screw them and the horse they rode in on.

If the French people don't WISH rein in their corrupt
government,
that
sells weapons to the people they have bound themselves NOT to
provide
weapons to. Then they are the recipient of the proper respect
due
them. Which is approximately none.

If they CAN'T rein them in, then they have my limited sympathy,
but
it's their problem to solve.

If they talk like an enemy and they act an enemy - then the
odds
are
that they ARE an enemy.

And I really don'tt give a **** whether you approve or not.

That's an interesting comment. How ironic that he could easily have
substituted
the American government for the French. They are now dealing with the
remnants
of the armed forces of a dictator who they actively supported for
years,
and
they are still fighting the same islamic groups in Afghanistan that
they
had
armed and supported.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:20:24 GMT, Greylock
wrote:


OK

WTF has that got to do with what is going on TODAY?

If Americans feel the need to constantly remind the world that they
have saved it in years long past, surely others are allowed the same.
Many Americans appear to have great difficulty accepting this.

And were they our FRIENDS then? Or were they the enemy of our enemies
the British? I suspect the latter has more truth in it.

Irrelevant. At country level the concept of 'friends' does not exist
as such.
---
DFM

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 05:03:08 GMT, wrote:


France held out against the germans longer than any other purely
european country. and yes I have personally met REAL resistance (and yea
most were communists bless there godless souls :-})


Yeah, well, France was invaded on 10 May 1940 and fell 14 June
1940, a total of 35 days. The Battle of Britain is set as lasting
from about 10 July to 31 October 1940, or about 113 days, and
Britain didn't fall, so some definitions may be in order. Or are
you considering Britain to not be "purely European"?

1) check the date that France declared war on germany.

2) Britain... yea it's that island just of the european coast.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 04:46:59 +0000, nobody wrote:



Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 05:03:08 GMT, wrote:


France held out against the germans longer than any other purely
european country. and yes I have personally met REAL resistance (and yea
most were communists bless there godless souls :-})


Yeah, well, France was invaded on 10 May 1940 and fell 14 June
1940, a total of 35 days. The Battle of Britain is set as lasting
from about 10 July to 31 October 1940, or about 113 days, and
Britain didn't fall, so some definitions may be in order. Or are
you considering Britain to not be "purely European"?

1) check the date that France declared war on germany.

Surely that doesn't really count though? (And Britain entered the war
also at about the same time.)

Truth remains that the French 1939/1940 campaign was anything but
glorious. Basically, because the right welcome Hitler with open arms and
legs, while the left was pacifist.

2) Britain... yea it's that island
just of the european coast.

Can't argue too much here, I guess... :-)

wrote in message
...


Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 05:03:08 GMT, wrote:


France held out against the germans longer than any other purely
european country. and yes I have personally met REAL resistance (and yea
most were communists bless there godless souls :-})


Yeah, well, France was invaded on 10 May 1940 and fell 14 June
1940, a total of 35 days. The Battle of Britain is set as lasting
from about 10 July to 31 October 1940, or about 113 days, and
Britain didn't fall, so some definitions may be in order. Or are
you considering Britain to not be "purely European"?

1) check the date that France declared war on germany.

Regardless of "declarations", the assault began on 10th May. I guess it was
21st or 22nd June when Paris finally collapsed.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 04:46:59 GMT, wrote:



Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 05:03:08 GMT, wrote:


France held out against the germans longer than any other purely
european country. and yes I have personally met REAL resistance (and yea
most were communists bless there godless souls :-})


Yeah, well, France was invaded on 10 May 1940 and fell 14 June
1940, a total of 35 days. The Battle of Britain is set as lasting
from about 10 July to 31 October 1940, or about 113 days, and
Britain didn't fall, so some definitions may be in order. Or are
you considering Britain to not be "purely European"?

1) check the date that France declared war on germany.

France didn't do any holding out during the Sitzkrieg. It started
holding out on 10 May 1940.

2) Britain... yea it's that island just of the european coast.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:03:51 +0000, pmlt
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:41:29 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

In most of Europe it's not really possible to vote for or against
the leader.


Where isn't it possible?

The UK, for one.


Not that the UK qualifies for "most of Europe". I get what you meant,
even if the queen hardly has any political power in the UK.

The queen is head of state; they don't elect their head of
government, either.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:52:38 GMT, "Terry Richards"
wrote:


"pmlt" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:41:29 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:27:34 +0000, pmlt
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:38:19 -0700, Hatunen wrote:


In most of Europe it's not really possible to vote for or against
the leader.


Where isn't it possible?

The UK, for one.


Not that the UK qualifies for "most of Europe". I get what you meant,
even if the queen hardly has any political power in the UK.


I think Hatunen was referring to the fact that the British Prime Minister is
not directly elected.

The Members of Parliament are elected and then the winning party selects the
PM from amongst those elected MPs.

Usually, but not necessarily. These days it seems to be the mode,
though. And it is not necessary for the PM to be an MP.

In theory, they only "suggest" a PM to
the queen but she never declines their suggestion. You can't have the
American situation where the president is from one party and the congress is
controlled by a different party.

Of course, the PM was elected but only as an MP, if you see what I mean
In practice, the party leader always runs in a safe district.

In fact, it is not necessary for the party leader who becomes PM
to hold a seat in either house.

Three things I don't know:-

- Has the winning party's leader ever not been elected?
- Has the winning party ever selected somebody other than the party's leader
as PM?

There have been wartime cabinets where the PM may not have been
part of the winning party.Oof course, sometimes the winning party
doesn't actually ahve a majority of seats in Commons, so it may
not actually be a winning party.

- Has the monarch ever refused the suggestion?

How far back can we go?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:16:59 +0000, pmlt
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:52:38 GMT, "Terry Richards"
wrote:


I think Hatunen was referring to the fact that the British Prime Minister is
not directly elected.


yes if so I believe that is right in most of the European countries.
However what you've written below is also right, that is, it's rather
unnusual, if not a "never seen", that the leader of the winning party
doesn't really get to be the prime minister (I don't recall any case).

If this happened, wouldn't this qualify as a little "fraud" to the
electors?

By whom?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:26:36 GMT, Greylock
wrote:


Gee whiz - I'm really devastated you don't like the fact that I
generally top post.

It's the posting style of someone who doesn't live in the past - like
you apparently do.

As an awful lot of us do.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *