"Cheese eatin' surrender monkeys".
Space
The Best "Life Imitates The Simpsons" Ever
Aug 22, 2003, 11:56 AM ET82 posts by 19 posters
82 posts
? The French have had a cowardly reputation, particularly in the US, for a long time.
Remove "moc" to reply.
Whoever says "Nothing is impossible" has never tried to slam a revolving door. - Willy Walker
"Aaron Hirshberg" wrote in message news:[email]...
you may want to read up on a little something called World War 2.
I saw a "military history of france" online once and they havent won a damn thing since the Napoleonic wars...wish I had the link...if I find it, I'll post it
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
They could kick your ass.
What, are you still pissed at the French for being right about the war?
I'm not pissed @ the french....we dont need those cheese eatin' surrender monkeys anyway
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
[email] (KATHYTAUS) wrote in message news:...
NO! I completely agree with their point of view! I just think that it is funny that they were depicted this way on 'The Simpsons'. That is all.
Space
Actually, they weren't. If you're to believe that the Iraqis have no WMD's, then the whole United Nations was wrong, as their own inspectors believed Hussein was hiding them right up to the beginning of the war. No nation credible (that leaves out Syria and Libya) ever made the claim that Saddam Hussein never had WMD's. That includes the trio of appeasers, Russia, France & Germany.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
I think he might mean right about Saddam not posing any real threat to anyone.
Though the real reasons for Chirac et al opposing the war are rather more sinister.....
Actually, we see that he was every day.
Agreed. My disdain for France has little to do with their opposition to military action in Iraq. Their behavior during the leadup to war didn't surprise me at all.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
explain.
Chris...the french couldnt kick ANYBODY'S ass
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
They bullied a few colonies quite effectively, I think.
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message news:[email]...
They had an empire that rivaled the British at one point.
The only detractors from the French right now are Americans, and who really cares about American oppinions anyway? I mean really, it's been proven that many of their school children can't even pick out their city on a map...
"Chris F" wrote in message news:bi8at8$jfb$[email]...
really
that
^^^^^^^^I normally don't pick on people's spelling in a forum such as this, but COME ON, if you're going to belittle an entire country's educational standards, try not to look like such an ass while doing it.
Yours truly, Some bozo
"Dr Music" wrote in message news:WoP1b.9052$[email]...
message
a
find
COME
Nonsense. When you have to resort to picking on spelling on usenet, a typo in the particular case, you've lost the argument.
"Chris F" wrote in message news:bi8nkn$n78$[email]...
won
map...
standards,
"Typo" is no excuse.
Oh, WHEN will the new season start, so we can get back to the fun stuff? :)
Yours truly, Some bozo
"Dr Music" wrote in message news:_dS1b.10520$[email]...
:)
Most shows usually start mid-October... knowing the simpsons, we'll get the first new episode in... February?
"Chris F" wrote in message news:bi9aiu$sec$[email]...
the
I loathe Fox a little more with each passing day.
Yours truly, Some bozo
["Dr Music"; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:18:12 GMT]
Banzai!
In alt.tv.simpsons, on the "Re: The Best "Life Imitates The Simpsons" Ever" thread, Chris F wrote:
Lately, Fox has been airing the "Treehouse of Horror" special on the Sunday after Halloween. If they hold true to form this year, the new season should start November 2.
Sunday
should
Actually, I would expect our most recent THOH to air on October 31. They might the episode to air that night so that Homer's mother can return on November 2nd.
Jessy Scholl
Chris F wrote:
Not if the argument is about edumacation. :-D
"Grand Inquisitor" wrote in message news:ctV2b.83686$[email]...
map...
standards,
typo
Thanks. You won't never regret this, Mister Editor person!
Yours truly, Some bozo
Many can't even find their country on a map of the world, and I'm not exaggerating.
Brad
"Brad Filippone" wrote in message news:biaoa3$iv9$[email]...
message
a
find
really
that
Actually, you are...usually those samples are done of about 100 students...they don't have to put their names on them or anything. Several of the ones I've known who have had to take it have found the questions moronic and have intentionally put the wrong answers...
And they were kicked out of most of North America and India by those British. The French were wonderful in conquering lands where the natives thought of spears and clubs as weapons of mass destruction.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
You really are a pathetic, puerile, racist moron. I don't even need to point out the obvious holes in your useless argument, here.
You seem ill-equipped to engage in legitimate debate. If you have a differing opinion, why not submit it for consideration?
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
if I wanted to argue with arrogant, ill-informed, petulant racists I'd head on over to alt.politics.white-power
[email] (~ Tony ~) wrote in message news:...
Ah, you must mean this:
Complete Military History of France
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by (of all people )the Italians.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. France claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power. War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since. American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that their opponents were also Frenchmen.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany's first play at the role of drunk Frat boy to France's lonely girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women finally find out what it's like to sleep with a winner who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French military bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rule of Warfare of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
World War II actually started in 1931 with Japan's invasion of the Manchuria province of China....
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
years
Romans actually. There's no Italy yet at this point. It this can hardly be held against the French, THe Romans defeated everyone (until they eventually managed to defeat themselves.
If anyone won the "Hundred Years War" it was the French. The English were the agressors, trying to find a legal excuse in the "Salic Law" that they owned France. They took over a lot of terretory, but were eventually beaten back home again, not entirely by Joan, but she was a big factor. After her capture, the French armies continued her work and won. England's only remaining hold in France was the city of Calais, and that finally fell two centuries later during Mary's reign
Incidentely "schizophrenic" does not describe Joan in the least.
No, as I said, the first time it was the Romans.
This was technically a civil war, so while they may have lost, they also won! When both sides are the same country it works that way.
I'll concede the rest, since I don't know those eras well enough.
Brad
TallPaul [email] wrote:
This was largely because the Romans decided that the gain from conquing it would not be large enough to justify the investment of troops needed to extricate the Picts from the highland terrain they were so experienced at defending.
I think it's probably best if we just let this entire subject die, France like most other countries is an almagam of different influences and it's history both millitary and otherwise far too long and varied to fall under one single simplistic theme. Hating an entire country, regardless of whether you perceive it's stance to be wrong on "The War On Terroism" is irrational, offensive, stupid and biggoted.
Yes, that's true. Ultimately they put up two walls (Hadrian's and the Antonine) to keep the Picts out.
Brad
"TallPaul" wrote in message news:bia5i3$28c$[email]...
Further to the point, as much of Europe was liberate by British and Canadian forces as was liberated by American forces.
This is true. No one is saying the USA alone saved Europe. But those British and Canadian troops used American built tanks, had their air forces equipped with American aircraft, supplied their armies with American built trucks, fueled all of these vehicles with American petroleum, and fed their soldiers with American meat and American grain. The American role in the liberation of Europe outweighs all others.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"TallPaul" wrote in message news:bii86s$aii$[email]...
Not to mention the fact that it wasn't given out of the generosity of their hearts... it just happened that they had the manufacturing base to meet demand...
Actually, I mentioned the UK and Canada, although all commonwealth nations were obviously involved. I don't seem to recall Australia doing much fighting in Europe, I seem to recall them doing most of their fighting in Asia, unless I'm wrong? If so, I greatly apologize.
Ironically, if the Allies had carried out the war as the Americans wanted rather than as the British wanted, they would have lost the war. The Americans were mostly just manpower.
Also, isn't it nice that it doesn't mention the American War Of Independence?
Completely moronic, both the idea in principle (history only works that way if you have the intellect of an 8-year-old) and this particular selection (I use the term "selection" very strongly here) of facts.
it DID mention "The American War of Independence" aka The American Revolution...
"In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims victory even the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as 'de Gaulle Syndrome', and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; 'France only wins when America does most of the fighting.'"
Are you an expert in military history to KNOW that the Brits actually were the strategists behind the liberation of most of Europe during WWII? FYI, the D-Day Invasion was an AMERICAN plan, and the commander of Allied Ground Forces was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and last time I checked, he was American...so please Mr. "Adrunk", know the facts before you open your mouth n make yourself sound dumb...
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
ah, then excuse my mistake. But "when America does most of the fighting"? Of course Americans were doing most of the fighting. It was an American revolution. The French were just helping out an ally by sending additional troops, as the American people criticised the French for NOT doing with Iraq. Sheesh.
I think perhaps you should take your own advice. The Americans originally proposed a had planned a 1943 invasion of Europe, codenamed ROUNDUP. It was put off by the British however, as they believed Allied force strength in 1943 was nowhere near sufficient to pull off the invasion. Historians unanimously agree that this was indeed the case, and that if ROUNDUP had gone ahead, the war could have taken a hugely different path.
And the reason they knew this was because of Dieppe fiasco, a fiasco of wholly British origins.
This is not an accurate statement. While "Roundup" would have been more difficult, the inevitable outcome (German defeat) could not have been changed. In the end, the desire to wait until 1944 was a wise choice, a choice made jointly by British and American commanders. It saved lives and shortened the war.
Jeez, doesn't anyone in here read books any more?
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
Your point being?
Nope. Ask any historian.
That the British learned the hard way, and were just as impatient to open a second front against Hitler as the US was.
One thing you need to learn about the world of historians is that there is never a unanimous belief in anything. Historians live for debate.
Germany was doomed from day #1. They neither had the economic or industrial base to wage war against the US, Great Britian and Russia combined. Even if Overlord had failed, the Anglo-Americans would have tried again at a later date, or the Russians would have conquered all of Western Europe.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
And? I never said the British were perfect. I'm just trying to dissuade you from your risible view of America as the great savior of the world.
Obviously I didn't mean literally unanimous. Virtually unanimous.
Not at all true. There are several events which, if you change them, would have put Germany in a much stronger position, and would have made it extremely hard. The cracking of the Enigma. Hitler's long-delayed introduction of the Me109 (and jet fighters in general) - the superiority of Allied airpower (especially in terms of bombers) was one of the biggest deciding factors in the second half of the war. And what if Hitler (and several other idiot top brass)'s usually dubious battle plans during the second half of the war had been quietly ignored, the Germans wouldn't have stumbled into some costly defeats. What if Hitler had decided to invade England? What if America had acted on its prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and avoided the disaster in the first place? Or conversely, America hadn't joined in the first place, preferring instead to concentrate on the Pacific situation? There are also several other variables which could have solved the problem of the Axis having to invade Russia during the Russian winter.
Look at it this way - there was about as much chance of the Allies winning with an invasion in 1943 as there was the Allies winning with no US help in the European arena at all.
The beginning of the end for Germany was it's decision to invade the USSR
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
Technically it was a joint plan. Saying one side ran the operation exclusively is historically inaccurate.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Are you making the claim that the US (and Great Britian) did not liberate France in 1944? If not, what are you trying to say here?
France may have declared war on 9/3/39, but they did virtually nothing before the German invasion of Belgium and Holland which began on 5/10/40. They sat behind the Maginot line and watched while a staunch ally Poland, a country they swore on paper to defend from German aggression, gets wiped off the map. They had an opportunity to launch an offensive in the first weeks of the war, where the German army was mostly engaged in Poland, but chose not to. Granted, France was not alone in it's timidity in the face of early Nazi aggression, but it was the only country in Europe equipped to challenge it directly, and it did nothing. Nada. Zip.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Well, they technically won WWI, although with a LOT of help from Great Britian and the USA. They haven't won a single military engagement on their own since the Napoleonic age. French military success before Napoleon was spotty too. They were on the losing side of 3 major wars (Austrian Succession, Spanish Succession, Seven Year's, AKA French & Indian War) in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Just remember: the greatest military commanders in French history were a schitzophrenic teenaged girl and an impotent Corsican midget.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
In that case, has the US ever won a single military engagement on its own?
I know the Iraq thing had British and Canadian help, Vietnam we lost...WW I an II we not only had help, we entered late...
War of 1812 Mexican-American War Spanish-American War
Granted, "victory" in the War of 1812 is a strong word. The US survived and prevented Britian from curtailing America as a merchant power, but it did come close to military defeat. I'd also consider the Civil War as a stand-alone victory, but that's because I tend to classify the Confederacy as a foreign nation. Other historians would disagree.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
the US has won several "military engagements" on their own...The War of 1812, The Spanish/American War, The Mexican/American War...they successfully invaded Panama to apprehend Manuel Noriega, and lets not forget that the US fought the entire Pacific Theatre of WWII ALONE
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
Tell that to the Australians.
you mean that Australia has an army??
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
Oh. WebTV. Should have realised.
Chris...just cus I'm poor(using webtv) DOESNT mean I'm stupid...I was being SARCHASTIC with the "u mean Australia has an Army?" post...purely T.I.C., and if you cant tell a joke from seriousness, it shows who's REALLY stupid...
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
Well in that case, you'll have to forgive *my* sarchasm, as you claimed the US fought the entire pacfic theatre by themselves... they invaded *japan* by themselves. There was a lot more to the theatre then Japan.
"Chris F" wrote in message news:bio2j9$nam$[email]...
the
by
Oh. And historicaly, the bulk of stupid posts on Usenet come from WebTV users. I can even provide you with examples if you like. There's a really bad precedent set behind you here.
In anycase, we're slipping off topic. I was poking my cat with a roll of socks this morning at breakfest, and she got mad at me. I realised somthing. My cats breath smells like cat food.
are you saying PC users never say anything stupid? One can hardly judge a person's intelligence by how they access the web...
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
Nonsense. Lots of stupid PC users. On the other hand, percentage wise, more WebTV users making stupid posts then PC users.
well aside from keeping the Japs out of their Country, what exactly did Australia do?
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
Quite a lot actually.
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
Going into a country to arrest a guy is not a military engagement...
Duff Man...The MILITARY arrested him...not the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF or any other arm of the Justice(and I use the term loosely) Dept., so what would you call it?
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
I would call it an arrest...
Otherwise, everytime a soldier is arrested and court martialed it could be termed a military conflict...
"Duff Man" wrote in message news:[email]...
Such nonsense... by Tony's definition, that would really be more of a civil war.
Chris...I never said "every time a soldier is arrested and court martialed it could be termed a military conflict"...that was DUFF MAN's quote, NOT mine...so what I said was NOT "nonsense", as you put it...all I said was the invasion of Panama in '89 was carried out by the US military, and they successfully apprehended their target...whats the difference between the '89 capture of Noriega and if the US would capture Saddam tomorrow? The "major hostilities" are long over, yet the MILITARY(NOT the FBI, CIA, whatever) is the entity of the US Gov't seeking Hussein
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"~ Tony ~" wrote in message news:[email]...
No difference between if the US captured Saddam Hussein tommorow and the capture of Noriega.
On the other hand, there's a major difference between the "invasion" of Panama, and the invasion of Iraq.
very true...there is a BIG difference between Panama n Iraq
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
"Duff Man" wrote in message news:...
When you use the marines to do it, it is.
Duff Man ([email]) wrote:
Yes on no on your mention of Canada. I'm not sure which conflict you mean though. Canada DID help out in 1991, but not this year.
Brad
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
who cares?
why do you mention that he was Corsican?
Historical accuracy.
See above.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
I mean, what's the significance of all these facts?
What's the significance of Napoleon coming from Corsica? Especially considering he left there when he was about 20.
[email] wrote:
You continually play down the Napoleonic wars as being some irrelevant exception to your infantile rule. This gives a false impression, Napolean managed to establish in his lifetime a French empire that swept across the entirety of Europe, if it hadn't been for the British then Napolean would in all likelihood of achieved complete European domination, a truly astounding achievement and most definitely not what one would expect from a millitary power as weak and ineffectual as you claim France to be.
You also heavily play down the role of the French in the American war of Independance when infact they actually served a crucial role in bringing about the eventual victory of the revolutionaries. Whether you wish to admit it, you owe a part of your freedom to the French military which you so deride.
As to your claims of cowardice concerning Frances descision not to support the invasion of Iraq, it displays a truly childish understanding of personal morality. France, the "old european" powers and the millions of people within your own country who chose not to support the war in Iraq did not do so because their cowardly, foolish or in someway moraly deviant, they did so because it was, in their opinions, the wrong decision to invade Iraq, just as you believe it was right the right descision. If you cannot handle a simple difference of opinion without resorting to hateful zenophobic stereotypes then I truly pity you.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
The US Civil War was actually not a Civil War at all, because the states of VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, AR, & TX CECEEDED from the United States, formed their own gov't, had their own currency, had(or tried to have) their own diplomatic relations with other nations, and those 11 states elected their own President, Jefferson Davis. They had their own army and navy, and were in no way attatched to or reliant upon the United States. The Conferacy also had its own Constitution and judicial system. The CSA was fighting for its' independence, so "Civil War" is not an accurate term. At the end of the war, the US Army was a force of occupation in the South, as they were, for example, in Japan after WWII. The eleven states listed above were occupied by the US Army and for a time, were under Martial Law. Those states were not allowed to rejoin the Union until they ratified the Thirteenth(and, depending on when said state was readmitted, the 14th and 15th also) Amendment. So hopefully this clears things up
Tony the History Junkie
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
True, but it's highly debatable whether or not the states had the RIGHT to secede from the union. The debate was covered ina series of articles stating btoh sides in North and South magazine a couple years back.
Brad
if those states had the right to JOIN the Union, wouldn't they then, conversely, have the right to withdraw? (BTW, I'm from PA...a Northern state)
"A woman drove me to drink, and I didn't even have the decency to thank her" -- W. C. Fields
Here are two things that I have always found interesting about the U.S. Civil War:
1. It could be said that the whole war was fought over whether the sentence should correctly read: "The United States are . . . " or "The United States is . . . "
and
2. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually freed no one at all! If you read it, you will see that it freed only those slaves in the "rebellious states" and, technically, exactly what jurisdiction did he have at that time over the rebellious states? Of course, NONE! So, it freed no one!
Regards,
Otto (Yes, that's my real name.)
"Brad Filippone" wrote in message news:binn50$nal$[email]...
"Otto Dietrich" wrote in message news:...
That depends on what your definition of "is", is.
Space