Chirac: "Without Polynesia, France would not be the great power it is" (& it wasn't our nuke tests that gave you cancer)

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

face it at the same table was also Woodrow Wilson. This was not a screw up from the French. This was a screw up from the allies (France, UK, Italy, USA).

Yep, and President Woodrow Wilson's main point was "self-determination" in Europe. David Lloyd George from the UK believed that the Germans should not be treated harshly. The greedy bastard of the conference was Clemenceau.

well maybe Clemencau was a greedy bastard but the treaty was signed by all the allies making the treaty a shared responsibility.

You want to talk about "shared responsibility" in this particular context of history? OK, fine. I'll play.

In 1923, the Germans were unable to pay the reparations outlined under the Treaty of Versailles. So what did the French and Belgian governments do? They sent troops into the Ruhr. Such actions naturally pissed the German off. In turn, the German began a passive resistance campaign. In response, the French brought in their own workers to run the German mines. Absolutely brilliant, no? Not only did the French send in troops and alienate the German even more, but now they controlled a substantial portion of the German economy. So how in the hell was the German supposed to pay reparations if the French controlled his primary industrial center?

Now who was it that intervened in the crises? Charles Dawes, an American banker appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee. He recommended fixed reparations payments instead of the sliding extortionist tactics the French were imposing on the German. He also recommended foreign loans to the German at this time of crises.

Oh of course the French were against compromise. They thought in their own twisted little arrogant minds that compromise with the German was out of the question. For a country producing the likes of Descartes, Pasteur and Becquerel, one would logically conclude they would be able to see problems with their demands pertaining to the Ruhr crises. But oh no, the greedy, nationalist French would not concede on this issue for the sake of European reconcilliation. French actions in the Ruhr at that time planted seeds of animosity, hatred, resentment and discontent among the German. Many of those seeds grew into one of the three main catalysts behind the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Sorry, but simplistic explanations within the historical context typically contain more truth in regards to matters of conflict.

The bottom line is that when examining the perspective of cause and effect behind the emergence of facism in Germany, the French hands are just as goddam filthy, if not much filthier, as the rest of them.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

face it at the same table was also Woodrow Wilson. This was not a screw up from the French. This was a screw up from the allies (France, UK, Italy, USA).

Yep, and President Woodrow Wilson's main point was "self-determination" in Europe. David Lloyd George from the UK believed that the Germans should not be treated harshly. The greedy bastard of the conference was Clemenceau.

well maybe Clemencau was a greedy bastard but the treaty was signed by all the allies making the treaty a shared responsibility.

You want to talk about "shared responsibility" in this particular context of history? OK, fine. I'll play.

In 1923, the Germans were unable to pay the reparations outlined under the Treaty of Versailles. So what did the French and Belgian governments do? They sent troops into the Ruhr. Such actions naturally pissed the German off. In turn, the German began a passive resistance campaign. In response, the French brought in their own workers to run the German mines. Absolutely brilliant, no? Not only did the French send in troops and alienate the German even more, but now they controlled a substantial portion of the German economy. So how in the hell was the German supposed to pay reparations if the French controlled his primary industrial center?

Now who was it that intervened in the crises? Charles Dawes, an American banker appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee. He recommended fixed reparations payments instead of the sliding extortionist tactics the French were imposing on the German. He also recommended foreign loans to the German at this time of crises.

Oh of course the French were against compromise. They thought in their own twisted little arrogant minds that compromise with the German was out of the question. For a country producing the likes of Descartes, Pasteur and Becquerel, one would logically conclude they would be able to see problems with their demands pertaining to the Ruhr crises. But oh no, the greedy, nationalist French would not concede on this issue for the sake of European reconcilliation. French actions in the Ruhr at that time planted seeds of animosity, hatred, resentment and discontent among the German. Many of those seeds grew into one of the three main catalysts behind the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Sorry, but simplistic explanations within the historical context typically contain more truth in regards to matters of conflict.

The bottom line is that when examining the perspective of cause and effect behind the emergence of facism in Germany, the French hands are just as goddam filthy, if not much filthier, as the rest of them.

first, where did I say about that era that the USA was the only responsible. Please show that to me. And like I said before if you sign a treaty
or a contract with multiple participants you have a shared responsibility, if you like it or not. I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty
led to the WWII but I don't agree with you when it comes to the "Blame only the French" part.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

face it at the same table was also Woodrow Wilson. This was not a screw up from the French. This was a screw up from the allies (France, UK, Italy, USA).

Yep, and President Woodrow Wilson's main point was "self-determination" in Europe. David Lloyd George from the UK believed that the Germans should not be treated harshly. The greedy bastard of the conference was Clemenceau.

well maybe Clemencau was a greedy bastard but the treaty was signed by all the allies making the treaty a shared responsibility.

You want to talk about "shared responsibility" in this particular context of history? OK, fine. I'll play.

In 1923, the Germans were unable to pay the reparations outlined under the Treaty of Versailles. So what did the French and Belgian governments do? They sent troops into the Ruhr. Such actions naturally pissed the German off. In turn, the German began a passive resistance campaign. In response, the French brought in their own workers to run the German mines. Absolutely brilliant, no? Not only did the French send in troops and alienate the German even more, but now they controlled a substantial portion of the German economy. So how in the hell was the German supposed to pay reparations if the French controlled his primary industrial center?

Now who was it that intervened in the crises? Charles Dawes, an American banker appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee. He recommended fixed reparations payments instead of the sliding extortionist tactics the French were imposing on the German. He also recommended foreign loans to the German at this time of crises.

Oh of course the French were against compromise. They thought in their own twisted little arrogant minds that compromise with the German was out of the question. For a country producing the likes of Descartes, Pasteur and Becquerel, one would logically conclude they would be able to see problems with their demands pertaining to the Ruhr crises. But oh no, the greedy, nationalist French would not concede on this issue for the sake of European reconcilliation. French actions in the Ruhr at that time planted seeds of animosity, hatred, resentment and discontent among the German. Many of those seeds grew into one of the three main catalysts behind the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Sorry, but simplistic explanations within the historical context typically contain more truth in regards to matters of conflict.

The bottom line is that when examining the perspective of cause and effect behind the emergence of facism in Germany, the French hands are just as goddam filthy, if not much filthier, as the rest of them.

first, where did I say about that era that the USA was the only responsible. Please show that to me. And like I said before if you sign a treaty
or a contract with multiple participants you have a shared responsibility, if you like it or not. I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty
led to the WWII but I don't agree with you when it comes to the "Blame only the French" part.

Would you agree that it is 80% France's fault?

 

[burnedout]

first, where did I say about that era that the USA was the only responsible. Please show that to me.

You did not. Your buddy, GuyDebordJudoClub, made such insinuation with: "How much money did Ford and Wall Street bankers give Hitler to help him rise to power? How many US multinationals did collaborate with the Nazi dictatorship to help it build its mighty army?"

And like I said before if you sign a treaty or a contract with multiple participants you have a shared responsibility, if you like it or not.

Responsibility of the French/Belgiums unilaterally sending in troops to the Ruhr? So you want to blame us for YOUR aggression against the German in 1923?

I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty led to the WWII but I don't agree with you when it comes to the "Blame only the French" part.

Nobody is "Blame only the French". However, they had a very large piece of the pie.

 

[kage69]

look at some facts and you will see that the USA and Saddam were the biggest buddies in the 80's in their common fight against the evil "Iranians". Isn't it funny that the Taliban were shooting with Stinger missiles after the american jets in Afghanistan. Stingers supplied by the CIA when OBL was a good guy.

It's one thing to quote facts, it's completely another to involve material that has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. Please, enlighten us all, how is any of that pertinent? America's actions in an entirely different political climate somehow prove that Chirac isn't an ass? OOoooook. Yeah, the US has some nerve not being able to see the future. Nevermind that fact that they didn't act as Saddam's personal bank, or supply him with materials for a nuclear reactor knowing full well what he wanted to do with it.

Spare me your nationalistic jibes, you don't know me, and couldn't be more wrong. In fact, after reading all your posts in this thread I think I've detected the true victim of oxygen-deprevation.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

face it at the same table was also Woodrow Wilson. This was not a screw up from the French. This was a screw up from the allies (France, UK, Italy, USA).

Yep, and President Woodrow Wilson's main point was "self-determination" in Europe. David Lloyd George from the UK believed that the Germans should not be treated harshly. The greedy bastard of the conference was Clemenceau.

well maybe Clemencau was a greedy bastard but the treaty was signed by all the allies making the treaty a shared responsibility.

You want to talk about "shared responsibility" in this particular context of history? OK, fine. I'll play.

In 1923, the Germans were unable to pay the reparations outlined under the Treaty of Versailles. So what did the French and Belgian governments do? They sent troops into the Ruhr. Such actions naturally pissed the German off. In turn, the German began a passive resistance campaign. In response, the French brought in their own workers to run the German mines. Absolutely brilliant, no? Not only did the French send in troops and alienate the German even more, but now they controlled a substantial portion of the German economy. So how in the hell was the German supposed to pay reparations if the French controlled his primary industrial center?

Now who was it that intervened in the crises? Charles Dawes, an American banker appointed by the Allied Reparations Committee. He recommended fixed reparations payments instead of the sliding extortionist tactics the French were imposing on the German. He also recommended foreign loans to the German at this time of crises.

Oh of course the French were against compromise. They thought in their own twisted little arrogant minds that compromise with the German was out of the question. For a country producing the likes of Descartes, Pasteur and Becquerel, one would logically conclude they would be able to see problems with their demands pertaining to the Ruhr crises. But oh no, the greedy, nationalist French would not concede on this issue for the sake of European reconcilliation. French actions in the Ruhr at that time planted seeds of animosity, hatred, resentment and discontent among the German. Many of those seeds grew into one of the three main catalysts behind the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Sorry, but simplistic explanations within the historical context typically contain more truth in regards to matters of conflict.

The bottom line is that when examining the perspective of cause and effect behind the emergence of facism in Germany, the French hands are just as goddam filthy, if not much filthier, as the rest of them.

first, where did I say about that era that the USA was the only responsible. Please show that to me. And like I said before if you sign a treaty
or a contract with multiple participants you have a shared responsibility, if you like it or not. I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty
led to the WWII but I don't agree with you when it comes to the "Blame only the French" part.

Would you agree that it is 80% France's fault?

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

first, where did I say about that era that the USA was the only responsible. Please show that to me.

You did not. Your buddy, GuyDebordJudoClub, made such insinuation with: "How much money did Ford and Wall Street bankers give Hitler to help him rise to power? How many US multinationals did collaborate with the Nazi dictatorship to help it build its mighty army?"

And like I said before if you sign a treaty or a contract with multiple participants you have a shared responsibility, if you like it or not.

Responsibility of the French/Belgiums unilaterally sending in troops to the Ruhr? So you want to blame us for YOUR aggression against the German in 1923?

I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty led to the WWII but I don't agree with you when it comes to the "Blame only the French" part.

Nobody is "Blame only the French". However, they had a very large piece of the pie.

You did not. Your buddy, GuyDebordJudoClub, made such insinuation with: "How much money did Ford and Wall Street bankers give Hitler to help him rise to power? How many US multinationals did collaborate with the Nazi dictatorship to help it build its mighty army?"

I suggest you don't use information in your posts that I did not post

Responsibility of the French/Belgiums unilaterally sending in troops to the Ruhr? So you want to blame us for YOUR aggression against the German in 1923?

no, the responsibilty about the content of the Versailles Treaty. And the Versailles Treaty specifically mentions the reparation payments.
The Treaty was signed by all the allies meaning that they basically agreed about the content of the Treaty. If you don't want the responsibility, you don't sign it, agreed??

Where did I blame the USA??? I'm really curious

Nobody is "Blame only the French". However, they had a very large piece of the pie.[/quote]

I agree

I suggest you stick with things I said and not with
1)a statement that somebody else said
2)things that I did not mentioned at all

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

You did not. Your buddy, GuyDebordJudoClub, made such insinuation with: "How much money did Ford and Wall Street bankers give Hitler to help him rise to power? How many US multinationals did collaborate with the Nazi dictatorship to help it build its mighty army?"

I suggest you don't use information in your posts that I did not post

The original statement by me was "Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Soll ich auf Deutsch schreiben?

Responsibility of the French/Belgiums unilaterally sending in troops to the Ruhr? So you want to blame us for YOUR aggression against the German in 1923?

no, the responsibilty about the content of the Versailles Treaty. And the Versailles Treaty specifically mentions the reparation payments.
The Treaty was signed by all the allies meaning that they basically agreed about the content of the Treaty. If you don't want the responsibility, you don't sign it, agreed??

Where did I blame the USA??? I'm really curious

By implying the Treaty of Versailles is "shared responsibility" in the context of Belgium/France sending troops to the Ruhr in 1923.

1. The United States Senate DID NOT ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, from a U.S. position, the treaty was null and void.

2. "By January 1923, Germany was behind in its in-kind reparations obligations by 24 million gold marks. When they again defaulted on their full quota--their 34th default in the past 36 months--the French, Italian, and Belgium members of the reparations' committee outvoted the British representative 3 to 1 and declared the Germans in default. Thereupon, French, Belgian, and Italian technicians, plus a small contingent of French and Belgian troops, entered the Ruhr and took over the German mines. In response, German workers engaged in passive resistance under orders from the Weimar government, which continued to pay them at full salary by printing money. [/b]The British and American governments protested, and America withdrew its occupation forces from the Rhineland.[/b]"

The United States had nothing to do with this confiscation of German land by greedy French and Belgian criminals.

I suggest you stick with things I said and not with
1)a statement that somebody else said
2)things that I did not mentioned at all

I suggest you look up and learn the complete American English definition of "some here".

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: burnedout

You did not. Your buddy, GuyDebordJudoClub, made such insinuation with: "How much money did Ford and Wall Street bankers give Hitler to help him rise to power? How many US multinationals did collaborate with the Nazi dictatorship to help it build its mighty army?"

I suggest you don't use information in your posts that I did not post

The original statement by me was "Yeah, some here go out of their way to imply these crackpot "conspiracy theories" and thus engage in a "blame America first" campaign when referring to that era. Soll ich auf Deutsch schreiben?

Responsibility of the French/Belgiums unilaterally sending in troops to the Ruhr? So you want to blame us for YOUR aggression against the German in 1923?

no, the responsibilty about the content of the Versailles Treaty. And the Versailles Treaty specifically mentions the reparation payments.
The Treaty was signed by all the allies meaning that they basically agreed about the content of the Treaty. If you don't want the responsibility, you don't sign it, agreed??

Where did I blame the USA??? I'm really curious

By implying the Treaty of Versailles is "shared responsibility" in the context of Belgium/France sending troops to the Ruhr in 1923.

1. The United States Senate DID NOT ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, from a U.S. position, the treaty was null and void.

2. "By January 1923, Germany was behind in its in-kind reparations obligations by 24 million gold marks. When they again defaulted on their full quota--their 34th default in the past 36 months--the French, Italian, and Belgium members of the reparations' committee outvoted the British representative 3 to 1 and declared the Germans in default. Thereupon, French, Belgian, and Italian technicians, plus a small contingent of French and Belgian troops, entered the Ruhr and took over the German mines. In response, German workers engaged in passive resistance under orders from the Weimar government, which continued to pay them at full salary by printing money. [/b]The British and American governments protested, and America withdrew its occupation forces from the Rhineland.[/b]"

The United States had nothing to do with this confiscation of German land by greedy French and Belgian criminals.

I suggest you stick with things I said and not with
1)a statement that somebody else said
2)things that I did not mentioned at all

I suggest you look up and learn the complete American English definition of "some here".

1. The United States Senate DID NOT ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, from a U.S. position, the treaty was null and void.

the senate did not ratify it because at that time the USA had a policy of isolation and the republican senate members considered Wilson almost as a socialist. The content was not the reason why the US senate refused to ratify the treaty. Like I already said I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty was a bad thing but the USA still has a (small) responsibility in it.

The United States had nothing to do with this confiscation of German land by greedy French and Belgian criminals.

just like the French and Belgians have nothing to do with the occupation of Iraqi land by American criminals
pot meets kettle

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

yes I find it, but I can not find a real response on my guestion so I give it a last try

Was the fight against the spread of communism the biggest reason why the USA intervened in Vietnam?
Show that you are a big boy and just answer the question

Like always I'm happy with a simple Yes or No.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The United States Senate DID NOT ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, from a U.S. position, the treaty was null and void.[/b]

the senate did not ratify it because at that time the USA had a policy of isolation and the republican senate members considered Wilson almost as a socialist. The content was not the reason why the US senate refused to ratify the treaty. Like I already said I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty was a bad thing but the USA still has a (small) responsibility in it.

The U.S had zero responsibility pertaining to greedy French and Belgian criminals invading Germany in 1923. The United States protested such actions at the time.

The United States had nothing to do with this confiscation of German land by greedy French and Belgian criminals.

just like the French and Belgians have nothing to do with the occupation of Iraqi land by American criminals
pot meets kettle

Who the hell said anything about Iraq? You lost this debate and now change the subject. Current United States operations in Iraq have nothing to do with the greedy Belgian and French criminals of 1923.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The United States Senate DID NOT ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, from a U.S. position, the treaty was null and void.[/b]

the senate did not ratify it because at that time the USA had a policy of isolation and the republican senate members considered Wilson almost as a socialist. The content was not the reason why the US senate refused to ratify the treaty. Like I already said I agree with you that the Versailles Treaty was a bad thing but the USA still has a (small) responsibility in it.

The U.S had zero responsibility pertaining to greedy French and Belgian criminals invading Germany in 1923. The United States protested such actions at the time.

The United States had nothing to do with this confiscation of German land by greedy French and Belgian criminals.

just like the French and Belgians have nothing to do with the occupation of Iraqi land by American criminals
pot meets kettle

Who the hell said anything about Iraq? You lost this debate and now change the subject. Current United States operations in Iraq have nothing to do with the greedy Belgian and French criminals of 1923.

LOL

yeah right I lost the debate.

You do your best not to reply any of my points

Continue waving your flag and be carefull not to choke in it

goodbye

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

yes I find it, but I can not find a real response on my guestion so I give it a last try

Was the fight against the spread of communism the biggest reason why the USA intervened in Vietnam?
Show that you are a big boy and just answer the question

Like always I'm happy with a simple Yes or No.

Yes it was probably the biggest reason.

Your turn. Was it or was it not France's fault for us even being there?

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's also amazing that they would equate france with a great military power. Nuclear weapons and their delivery mechanisms doesn't mean you are great in any respect.

Thank you Dari, that was my point all along.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

LOL

yeah right I lost the debate.

You do your best not to reply any of my points

Continue waving your flag and be carefull not to choke in it

goodbye

So why can't you debate any of my responses? My responses are compelling and now you wish to disregard them? What has flagwaving to do with FACTS?

You take the cheap way out of the debate.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

yes I find it, but I can not find a real response on my guestion so I give it a last try

Was the fight against the spread of communism the biggest reason why the USA intervened in Vietnam?
Show that you are a big boy and just answer the question

Like always I'm happy with a simple Yes or No.

Yes it was probably the biggest reason.

Your turn. Was it or was it not France's fault for us even being there?

The USA decided to step in, if you want to blame someone, blame your politicians of that time.

EISENHOWER, August 4, 1953

...So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we're not voting for a giveaway program. We're voting for the cheapest way that we can prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security!

KENNEDY, September 2, 1963

...If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya would go.

NIXON, March 22, 1971

...If the United States now were to throw in the towel and come home and the Communists took over South Vietnam, then all over Southeast Asia, all over the Pacific, in the Mideast, in Europe, in the world, the United States would suffer a blow. And peace -- because we are the great peace-keeping nation in the world today, because of our power -- would suffer a blow from which it might not recover.

nowhere do I read in the statements "we have to save the French again"

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

yes I find it, but I can not find a real response on my guestion so I give it a last try

Was the fight against the spread of communism the biggest reason why the USA intervened in Vietnam?
Show that you are a big boy and just answer the question

Like always I'm happy with a simple Yes or No.

Yes it was probably the biggest reason.

Your turn. Was it or was it not France's fault for us even being there?

The USA decided to step in, if you want to blame someone, blame your politicians of that time.

EISENHOWER, August 4, 1953

...So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we're not voting for a giveaway program. We're voting for the cheapest way that we can prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security!

KENNEDY, September 2, 1963

...If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya would go.

NIXON, March 22, 1971

...If the United States now were to throw in the towel and come home and the Communists took over South Vietnam, then all over Southeast Asia, all over the Pacific, in the Mideast, in Europe, in the world, the United States would suffer a blow. And peace -- because we are the great peace-keeping nation in the world today, because of our power -- would suffer a blow from which it might not recover.

nowhere do I read in the statements "we have to save the French again"

All of your quotes came from politicians after the war had already started. How can what they said cause a war before they said it?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I answer your question if you answer mine about Vietnam

I'm waiting....

I answered it already, but probably not the answer you wanted

bs

Your first posts were how the French were basically responsible for the US intervention in Vietnam
You just can't admit that the US intervention was all about fighting communism and NOT about the French

is it that hard to admit that you were just bashing the french????

Apparently some of the posters on here are blind:


and yes one of the reasons was to stop the spread of communism which would not have happened had the Vietnamese tried to gain independence from the French....fair enough answer?


Can you find my response yet?

yes I find it, but I can not find a real response on my guestion so I give it a last try

Was the fight against the spread of communism the biggest reason why the USA intervened in Vietnam?
Show that you are a big boy and just answer the question

Like always I'm happy with a simple Yes or No.

Yes it was probably the biggest reason.

Your turn. Was it or was it not France's fault for us even being there?

The USA decided to step in, if you want to blame someone, blame your politicians of that time.

EISENHOWER, August 4, 1953

...So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we're not voting for a giveaway program. We're voting for the cheapest way that we can prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security!

KENNEDY, September 2, 1963

...If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya would go.

NIXON, March 22, 1971

...If the United States now were to throw in the towel and come home and the Communists took over South Vietnam, then all over Southeast Asia, all over the Pacific, in the Mideast, in Europe, in the world, the United States would suffer a blow. And peace -- because we are the great peace-keeping nation in the world today, because of our power -- would suffer a blow from which it might not recover.

nowhere do I read in the statements "we have to save the French again"

All of your quotes came from politicians after the war had already started. How can what they said cause a war before they said it?

they are not saying what caused the war, they are saying why they got INVOLVED in that war
they are saying that they get involved because of communism not because of the French

look at the timeline -- by the time the USA got really involved there were no French to save because they were not there anymore. France withdrew its last troops in 1956. The US got heavily involved after 1956 (and with heavily involved I mean sending large numbers of troops-for a long time there were only "advisors" in Vietnam).

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

they are not saying what caused the war, they are saying why they got INVOLVED in that war
they are saying that they get involved because of communism not because of the French

look at the timeline -- by the time the USA got really involved there were no French to save because they were not there anymore. France withdrew its last troops in 1956. The US got heavily involved after 1956 (and with heavily involved I mean sending large numbers of troops-for a long time there were only "advisors" in Vietnam).

Had the French pulled out and helped them establish their own Independent government then there would have been no need for them to run to China to gather weapons. No one likes living under someone elses rule. The French enabled communism to gain a foothold in Vietnam and the US attempted to remove it. Get it yet or should I simplify it even more?

My guess is they would not have formed a communist state nor a democratic one, probably something closer to a Monarchy or some tribunal type thing. Eventually, they would become a democratic state after seeing how well other democratic states are doing. Also, they probably would have gotten in on the import car phenomenon that is sweeping America.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks

they are not saying what caused the war, they are saying why they got INVOLVED in that war
they are saying that they get involved because of communism not because of the French

look at the timeline -- by the time the USA got really involved there were no French to save because they were not there anymore. France withdrew its last troops in 1956. The US got heavily involved after 1956 (and with heavily involved I mean sending large numbers of troops-for a long time there were only "advisors" in Vietnam).

Had the French pulled out and helped them establish their own Independent government then there would have been no need for them to run to China to gather weapons. No one likes living under someone elses rule. The French enabled communism to gain a foothold in Vietnam and the US attempted to remove it. Get it yet or should I simplify it even more?

My guess is they would not have formed a communist state nor a democratic one, probably something closer to a Monarchy or some tribunal type thing. Eventually, they would become a democratic state after seeing how well other democratic states are doing. Also, they probably would have gotten in on the import car phenomenon that is sweeping America.

we will never know for sure what would have happened if the French left in 1945. My best guess is that we would still see a communist invasion much like what happenend with Tibet. Maybe the USA would have intervened already in force in 1946 --- who knows

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
They forgot to say that the friend of Chirac who rules those islands is a mafioso...like his Don, our President.

Does anyone know how many innocents died because of US nuclear weapons?

Get back under your rock you pathetic French s*it! :evil:

Q: Why do French men have mustaches?
A: To remind them of their mothers.

 

[Gaard]

When I first saw that this thread was back up on top, I thought for a second that Ali had come back to explain why himself. No such luch.