Next time you hear a Freeper bash France or call them cowardly, etc.

[ET Awful]

Remind them, and I haven't thought of this in a LONG time. . . .

In 1983 when the US Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed, killing 241 US Marines, Reagan did nothing, in fact, in the long run, he pulled the troops out of the area.

On the same day those barracks were attacked, within 20 seconds, the French Paratrooper barracks were also attacked and completely destroyed. While Reagan did nothing for fear of pissing off oil-producing Middle Eastern countries, France determined that Iran was responsible for those attacks, and launched an air strike in the Bekka Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions.

So Freepers, while your hero Reagan ran away and moved troops out of Beirut, the French actually responded to the attacks.

Remember that.

[Ilsa]

1. Thanks I'll be using this for an email. eom

[deadparrot]

2. If it weren't for the French, we wouldn't be the United States of America.

That's my standard response.

[ET Awful]

3. Mine too, but when you juxtapose French backbone with Reagan waffling

It'll really twist their testes.

[deadparrot]

5. God forbid Raygun do...*gasp* wrong...

;)

[Hamlette]

15. I say "without France we'd all be singing 'God save the Queen'"

makes 'em grumble.

[DivinBreuvage]

18. Actually the French tried to sell America out during the peace negotiation

a fact that is conveniently forgotten or unknown to American Francophiles. Nor did France distinguish itself at the critical battles of Concord, Bunker Hill, Trenton and Princeton, and Saratoga (the campaign in which the American rabble captured an entire British army, a dramatic victory that brought the French openly into the war) for the simple fact that France wasn't there -- although admittedly some argue that French supplies gave the Americans the edge they needed to win at Saratoga.

Yes, French assistance definitely contributed to the eventual American victory. But it is just as inaccurate to give the French too much credit for winning that war as it is to give them none.

After all, if you read your history, you'll find that about the only time since 1337 where the English didn't manage to trounce the French was the one time when the French got lucky enough to have the Americans helping them out. Well, there was that crazy French peasant girl too, but she was like a nutjob fundie or something so it's better not to bring her up around here.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. The French bashing really gets me pissed off.

I love that place, have been numerous times, am fluent in the language and just adore tous les choses Francais.

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said "Boycott France". What an asshat.

[Canuckistanian]

6. I can't imagine a country that has been attacked more

England, Spain, Italy and Germany have all attacked or invaded France. Yet France is still around isn't it? Shouldn't all the French be speaking another language if they're such cowards?

And also remember that France had lost so many men defending themselves in WWI that they didn't have enough troops to properly defend themselves in WWII.

France knows plenty about patriotism, suffering, war and aggression. Much, much more than the Americans. So when a Chickenhawk Republican stands up on his scraggly legs to denounce the French as cowards they should be reminded that France is and always has been a great survivor during unimaginable horror.

And when France refused to support an illegal, injust war against a sovereign country (which most in America are just now starting to believe), they were just ahead of the curve. It's not that they're against fighting terrorism. They've got their own troops in Afghanistan right now.

The French, cowards? They could teach Americans about TRUE bravery in the face of REAL aggression.

[DivinBreuvage]

14. One correction if I may: the French had plenty of men in WWII

In fact the French could easily have wrecked Hitler if they had opposed his march into the Rhineland in 1936. The French army was far larger than the German army. There would have been no Second World War, no Fall of France, if the French government had had the will to act.

The problem in WWII was that almost all French officers, like almost all officers of every other army outside of Germany, had no comprehension of the Blitzkrieg. Superior tactics beat superior firepower, as lamentable cases elsewhere continue to prove to this very day.

[Canuckistanian]

22. I stand corrected, but I have heard that point

In both wars, the lack of understanding of modern warfare. Trench warfare was not anticipated in WWI and there was too much dependence on physical barriers, such as the Maginot Line.

[Nay]

7. People know not to bash France in front of me at work --

I'm happy to tell them about the thousands of French in the underground in WWII who died like flies to fight the Nazis, and the fact that the French pulled our revolutionary asses out of the fire and made this country possible.

Shuts 'em up every time.

Once they figured out I knew history and they had fakey talking points they could spew but not defend, that was the end of that.

[Journeyman]

11. Ah, but for all the French in the Underground who fought and died. . .

and they were many and their legendary deeds quite admirable, there were countless others who collaborated with the Nazis or worked for Vichy.

Marcel Ophüls, The Sorrow and the Pity, tells the sordid tale.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. I think you have your proportions wrong

The numbers in the French Resistance were roughly equal to the numbers of direct collaborators. The vast numbers were those who either resisted or collaborated passively, or simply tried to live their lives in the day-to-day. Moreover, Ophüls The Sorrow and the Pity says precisely that. Sure, it destroys the myth - mostly circulated in post-War France and nowhere else (which was why the film was banned there) - that the majority of French people were somehow involved in direct resistance. But it also destroys the myth - mostly circulated among asinine American conservatives - that the majority of the French people were involved in direct collaboration or even capitulation. Both myths fall before the much more moving point: most people try to get on with their lives, to go along to get along, and try to avoid the problem of the state-form (or despotism) to the extent that that's possible. That's the sorrow. And the pity. And it's not specific to France.

[jmatthan]

20. How many Americans are

collaborating with the Bush Crime Family?

How many Americans are paying their taxes that is being used to support th is illegal Invasion and Occupation of Iraq?

How about you?

(And by using YOU, I am not referring specifically to the poster to whom I am replying but to EVERY AMERICAN who pays his taxes)

What amount of YOUR money is being used to kill, torture, maim innocent Iraqi?

And what are YOU doing about it? Does that not make you a collaborator?

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Didn't know we had a choice not to pay our taxes?

Well we could refuse and go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. And as to the decision on how our tax dollars are spent, you're kidding right? Easy to sit on the side lines and criticize every American who pays his? taxes, while not actually have to bear the burden and guilt some of us Americans feel regarding the killing, torture of innocent Iraqis that our tax dollars support, isn't it?

[Kalish]

8. that's interesting

something I did not know about...

[DanCa]

9. Will do

Funny how they hate anyone who disagrees with war but they wont enlist themselves. Besides whatever happened to a country's right to self govern?

[eissa]

10. I've used something similar

with the rabid repukes I'm surrounded with. One special one started spewing about how Clinton should have been tried for treason because of the 18 lives lost in Somalia under his watch. I asked why those same charges should not have applied to Reagan for losing 200+ in Beirut. I still smile when I remember the look on her face :)

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

13. Yes, that's a great example to use...

they don't like hearing anything that might tarnish Reagan, ha ha.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Too Nuanced! I simply remind them that their head is full of shit, and it

is leaking from their lips.
'

[mcctatas]

17. My repuke brother (although he didn't vote for bush in '04)

has this almost pathological hatred of the French, every-time anyone even mentions France, the veins in his neck stand out and he starts stuttering and nearly frothing at the mouth!!! The oddest thing is that his "disorder" (as my mom and I call it) pre-dates 9/11, Bush etc. and he's only 26!! :silly:

[alfredo]

19. Remember Chirac was the first head of state to visit in support

after 9-11.

Let's face it, the French have been fighting foreign and domestic terrorism for decades. How many terrorist attacks has their been in France the last decade. It was stupid to refuse to listen to France's advice before and after 9-11.

Chirac knew the "evidence" bush used to sell the war was bogus, so did the people of France. 90% of the people of France were against the war. In a democratic nation a leader cannot ignore those numbers.

[kodi]

21. of course Reagan did something. he invaded Grenada immediately

.