NationStates Jolt Archive

French Shoot Down Ivory Coast Warplanes
By PAULINE BAX, Associated Press Writer

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast - Government warplanes bombed a rebel stronghold
Saturday, killing a French peacekeeper and injuring 20 other people, and French troops responded by shooting down two military planes and an attack helicopter, U.N. officials said.

The violence threatened to drag French and U.N. peacekeepers into Ivory
Coast's renewed civil war, sparked when army hardliners Thursday broke a cease-fire after more than a year of relative peace and launched airstrikes on
rebel-held cities.

The government warplanes struck the northern town of Bouake on Saturday
afternoon, killing the French soldier, U.N. mission spokesman Jean Victor Nkolo
said. It was not clear whether the 20 injured were French soldiers or others,
or what the air raid was targeting.

Soon after, a U.N. military spokesman said French forces shot down two Ivory
Coast warplanes and an attack helicopter over rebel territory.

Ivory Coast military commanders have vowed to retake the north, held by
rebels since the September 2002 start of the war in the world's top cocoa producer.

France and the United Nations (news - web sites) have about 10,000
peacekeepers in Ivory Coast, a former French colony. Some of the peacekeepers are deployed in positions in a buffer zone separating the government-controlled south from the north.

A U.N. military spokesman said the 6,200-strong U.N. force in Ivory Coast
lacked the manpower to guard all routes into the rebel north.

"It's not impossible for the forces to go around our post" to reach rebel
strongholds, spokesman Philippe Moreux said. "We are only on the main road."

There were no immediate reports of new clashes Saturday.

Fearing a spread of the fighting, the France-based relief group Medecins
Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Border, said Saturday it was evacuating some staff from its hospital in the western town of Danane, about 20 miles from Ivory Coast's border with Liberia (news - web sites). The west saw some of the most brutal attacks of the war.

"We are very worried," the aid group's spokeswoman Vanessa van Schoor
said. "We really hope that the hospital will not be attacked. We still have patients inside. The population of Danane has suffered a great deal already" in the war.

Van Schoor said the hospital would remain functioning. She declined to say how many staffers were being brought out or where they were being taken.

Ivory Coast's war killed thousands and uprooted more than 1 million,
threatening efforts by neighboring countries - Sierra Leone and Liberia - to
recover from their own vicious civil wars of the 1990s.

Last year's peace deals, brokered under international pressure, ended major
fighting but an agreed-upon power-sharing government has never taken hold.

The U.N. Security Council - which has poured billions of dollars and
thousands of peace troops into West and Central Africa to support peace accords - expressed alarm at the renewed fighting, as have France, the United States and others.

Nigerian President Olosegun Obasanjo, current president of the African
Union, opened talks with regional leaders Saturday at his farm on the outskirts of Nigeria's commercial capital, Lagos, to look for a way out of the crisis.

Senior African Union officials were among those attending. Remi Oyo,
Obasanjo's spokeswoman, declined to say if Ivory Coast government or rebel
representatives would take part.

If anything, this will just mean a few more skirmishes here and there. I doubt Yamoussokro would want direct confrontation with the French, or at least not publically condoning the bombing of Frenchmen. The French have an army with nothing to do, and a rather decent one at that. The Charles de Gualles alone probably has more air fire power than the Ivory Coast.
The French probably don't want war, either. Any major attack on government forces would cause the central government to collapse, whether the French intended it or not. Unless they want a PR disaster, the French need to occupy the country. It's predominatly Muslim, and with a Western power occupying it, terrorist recruiters would be knocking on the doors for recruits. It'd turn into what Iraq is right now, and perhaps worse if the Islamic fundementalist recruits and the preexisting rebels team up.

Rofl, man France should just give up now and save some peoples lives.

After-all America is going to save them for the 10th time.

Rofl, man France should just give up now and save some peoples lives.

After-all America is going to save them for the 10th time.


Nice.

After all, the standard US complaint is that other countries don't do enough to help quell hot-spots around the world. And here is a combined French/UN mission trying to stop a civil war (and doing it pretty damned succesfully for the past year I might add), and you want to insult them for that too.



The old "no matter what you do we'll insult you for it" tact.

Real mature.

hehe...french...army...hehe

Nice.

After all, the standard US complaint is that other countries don't do enough to help quell hot-spots around the world. And here is a combined French/UN mission trying to stop a civil war (and doing it pretty damned succesfully for the past year I might add), and you want to insult them for that too.



The old "no matter what you do we'll insult you for it" tact.

Real mature.
It doesn't appear too successful right now. If I were the French government, I'd withdraw now. The Cote d'Ivoire issue will one day be important, but that may take decades to do.

As a concerned citizen of the world, I denounce this french militarism, and demand they withdraw their troops immeadiately, etc.

How dare they fight this illegal war blah blah blah blah. !!!!!!! :mad:

I just heard some rowdy, drunken German tourist have captured Paris. They are marching under the Arch De Capitulation now.

Rofl, man France should just give up now and save some peoples lives.

After-all America is going to save them for the 10th time.Nonsense, something like this is small enough to be handled by the Legion Etrangere, as it doubtless will be with some support from the regular army. The Legion specializes in this type of action and is very well trained to deal with it.

Nonsense, something like this is small enough to be handled by the Legion Etrangere, as it doubtless will be with some support from the regular army. The Legion specializes in this type of action and is very well trained to deal with it.
They should forget it. Cote d'Ivoire is far too fragile to even touch, and it'd have to result in occupation. I'm sure the Legion can't handle that. Judging from past experience, not even the French military can handle that. They've lost nearly all of their colonies, save for a few small islands around the world, and French Guiana.

The ivory coast will probaly beat France given there war history if it comes down to ground fighting.

Nonsense, something like this is small enough to be handled by the Legion Etrangere, as it doubtless will be with some support from the regular army. The Legion specializes in this type of action and is very well trained to deal with it.

You must be french....

I'm willing to bet a couple of my friends and I could take out your little Legion Entrangere with a paintball gun and 20 bucks

They are not at war. The region is in civil unrest because of a civil war, and France had peace keeping forces there, and then they were bombed.

Nonsense, something like this is small enough to be handled by the Legion Etrangere, as it doubtless will be with some support from the regular army. The Legion specializes in this type of action and is very well trained to deal with it.


Legion Etrangere = teh suck

But at least is shows the french have formally acknowleged that they need non-french to do their fighting for them.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France
1769-1821


One of the most brilliant individuals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte was a masterful soldier, an unequalled grand tactician and a superb administrator. He was also utterly ruthless, a dictator and, later in his career, thought he could do no wrong.

Not a Frenchman by birth, Napoleon Bonaparte was born at Ajaccio on Corsica - only just sold to France by the Italian state of Genoa - on 15 August 1769 and learnt French at the school of Autun and later the military academy at Brienne. He never fully mastered French and his spelling left a lot to be desired.

The revolutionary fever that was spreading when Bonaparte was a teenager allowed a talented individual the opportunity to rise far beyond what could have been achieved only a few years previously.

His first real military opportunity came as a captain of artillery at the siege of Toulon, where he expertly seized crucial forts and was able to bombard the British naval and land forces, eventually forcing them to sail away.

Now a brigadier-general, Bonaparte served in the army campaigning in Italy but found himself arrested and jailed for being an associate of the younger brother of Maximilien Robespierre.

With no position for him after his release, Bonaparte thought about joining the Turkish army and even joining a naval expedition to Australia, but became involved with a member of the Directory, Paul Barras, who used the young man's zeal to put down a royalist mob in 1795 with the now legendary "whiff of grapeshot".

With his loyalty and ruthlessness proven, the next year Bonaparte took up command of the Army of Italy and set off on a campaign that was to take him to absolute power in France and Europe.

Initially treated with suspicion, and not a little contempt, by the older generals he superceded, Bonaparte won over his badly treated soldiers with promises of great things to come and a large helping of personal bravery. Like Caesar, he was not afraid to get into the thick of the fighting to inspire his men.

In a series of battles that included such as Montenotte, Mondovi, Arcola and Rivoli, Bonaparte swept the board of ageing Austrian generals and established himself as one of the leading soldiers of his time.

After masterminding the Peace of Campo Formio, Bonaparte returned to Paris where he took command of the Army of England, an imposing force neutered by England's wooden walls of its navy.

Desperate to be both at Britain and pushing his own reputation, Bonaparte planned an expedition to Egypt to threaten his foe's trading routes. He sailed from Toulon in 1798 and, after capturing Malta, made it to Egypt in early July.

The campaign began brilliantly when he smashed the power of the ruling Mamelukes at the Battle of the Pyramids, but was crippled when Nelson's hound-pack fleet finally caught up with the French navy at Aboukir (Battle of the Nile) and sank all but four of the 17-ship force.

Stranded and with suspect supply lines, Bonaparte moved into Syria and won the battle of Mt Tabor before being halted by fierce and stubborn resistance at Acre.

Stricken with disease and wary of a mass revolt in Cairo, the French made a horrendous march through the deserts of the Sinai, but arrived at Aboukir in good enough condition to crush another Turkish force.

Realising the potential success of his campaign was now limited, if not impossible, Bonaparte decided to abandon his army and get back to the centre of power - Paris - and make sure his position had not been undermined.

Popular with the people, Bonaparte found the loathed Directory very cool towards his surprise arrival and no doubt took pleasure in their discomfort when he, Abbe Sieyes and Roger Ducos seized power in the Coup de Brumaire, which saw them share power as equal consuls. Within months Bonaparte was First Consul and had eased his "equals" into early retirement.

The next stage in Bonaparte's career came in 1800, when he again moved into Italy with another brilliant manouevre that saw him lead the French army over the Alps and surprise the occupying Austrians.

It almost proved to be a blunder - as Bonaparte was in turn caught by surprise at the tenacity of General Melas who attacked him at Marengo. Holding on for grim life the situation was saved for Bonaparte by General Louis Desaix's arrival with reinforcements and what was a lost battle became a stunning victory for the First Consul.

Together with the victory at Hohenlinden, Marengo forced the Austrians to the table and the resulting Peace of Leoben in 1801 and Peace of Amiens (1802) brought to an end a decade of revolution, strife and war.

He also got France back in to the good books of Rome through the Concordat with the Pope, which eased the restrictions and penalties imposed on the church by the Revolution.

Bonaparte's popularity was now unprecedented and he was voted Consul for life. Setting about much-needed civil reforms he turned upside down the old system of running France and introduced the Civil Code.

But all was not safe for Bonaparte and there were several attempts on his life, including a bomb set off in Paris as his carriage went by.

Still, in 1804, the general felt confident and secure enough to declare himself Emperor and the next day created the Marshalate for his most trusted and talented soldiers.

Bonaparte waited until 2 December for his coronation where, with much pomp and ceremony, he crowned himself.

While affairs within France were on a high, Bonaparte committed a serious error when the determined Duc d'Enghien, a Royalist figurehead, was kidnapped from neutral Baden, tried without a lawyer defending him and then executed. The event turned Europe's monarchies forever against him and led to the formation of the Third Coalition to try to bring down his regime.

Bonaparte reacted by amassing a huge army - the first Grande Armee - on the coastline of Europe with the intention of invading Britain but, fortunately for those opposing him, he was never given the opportunity as Admiral Horatio Nelson smashed his naval ambitions at Trafalgar in 1805.

While his political radar may have been off with the D'Enghien affair, his military one was not and knowing his enemies were mobilising against him he prepared a pre-emptive strike.

Secretly redeploying the 200,000-man Grand Armee, Bonaparte had them march by various routes until they were in striking distance of Austria's General Mack, who was waiting at Ulm for the arrival of the Russian army under General Kutusov.

The French manouevre worked brilliantly and General Mack found himself trapped within the city of Ulm with little sign of Kutusov. He made two major attempts to extricate his 27,000 men - at Elchingen and Haslach - but in the end had little choice but to surrender.

With the way to Vienna clear, Bonaparte occupied the enemy capital and then set out after the Russians and the remaining Austrian forces.

He caught them at Austerlitz where, with tactical brilliance, he tricked them in to attacking him and proceeded to destroy them.

The victory led to the Peace of Pressburg and Austria was forced to give up huge areas of influence in Germany and Italy.

With Europe pacified, the French emperor once again turned his eyes towards Britain and developed a plan to wage economic war - the Continental System - on his closest enemy.

With the large number of states under either his control or influence, Bonaparte decided that by excluding Britain from trading with them he could hurt that nation's economy sufficiently to stop it bankrolling more wars on mainland Europe.

Reluctantly adopted by Europe, it didn't take long for the Continental System to begin another war. In order to stop Portugal trading with Britain he sent an army through his ally Spain to enforce the blockade.

Then, inexplicably, he used the presence of French troops in Spain to persuade the King Charles IV to step down and be replaced by Joseph Bonaparte.

The reaction of the Spanish people could have been predicted and an uprising broke out that was to spread across the entire nation and last for six years.

Bonaparte's miscalculation was to cost him more than 200,000 casualties and be a constant drain upon his resources. It was aptly dubbed "the Spanish Ulcer".

Worse was to come as a French army was forced to surrender to a Spanish force at Bailen, destroying the notion of French invincibility, and Britain landed a small army under Arthur Wellesley in Portugal.

It quickly defeated General Junot's Army of Portugal and forced Bonaparte to return to the field at the head of a hastily assembled force.

His campaign was highly successful, defeating the Spanish and putting down the major revolt and he managed to force the British, now under Sir John Moore, into a scrambling retreat to Corunna and evacuation by ship.

Bonaparte's success, however, failed to impress the Austrians and, by 1809, the leaders in Vienna felt confident enough to form the Fifth Coalition with Britain and move against France's Bavarian allies.

Caught by surprise the French, under Marshal Berthier, initially were in serious trouble against the capable Archduke Charles, but the arrival of the emperor bolstered confidence and began to set things to rights.

The French won the battles of Abensberg and Eckmuhl, almost lost Aspern-Essling after Bonaparte's advanced units became trapped against the flooded Danube River with the entire Austrian army bearing down on them, and then defeated Charles at Wagram.

Peace followed and was cemented when Bonaparte, now divorced from Josephine, married Marie-Louise of Austria.

Between 1810 and 1812 tensions between France and Russia kept increasing and, when Tsar Alexander refused to back down despite an army of 600,000 men on his border, Bonaparte ordered an invasion.

Despite being well planned the campaign was doomed by the sheer distances that had to be marched.

Bonaparte was hoping to force a decisive battle soon after entering Russia, but the defenders traded space for time by reteating. There were bloody, but indecisive, battles at Smolensk and Borodino and, when the French finally reached Moscow, they found that the Russians had preferred to set fire to it rather than let the French have it.

Still hoping for peace negotiations, Bonaparte delayed leaving the capital for too long and on his march back to France disaster hit the Grande Armee.

Appalling cold, lack of supplies and constant attacks by Russian forces whittled away the once-magnificent army so that when it finally stumbled out of Russia its survivors numbered fewer than 20,000.

Seeing the French almost on their knees the revenge-seeking Prussians broke their alliance with Paris and, together with Sweden, joined the Tsar's campaign to kick the French out of Germany.

The 1813 Campaign through Germany saw a weakened Bonaparte fight and win the battles of Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden, but the sheer weight of numbers caught up with him at Leipzig, where some 200,000 Frenchmen took on 400,000 enemy troops in a massive three-day battle.

Defeated, and his forces also facing an unbeaten and advancing British army in Spain, Bonaparte gathered strength for his last roll of the die - the battle for France.

The following campaign saw Bonaparte return to his brilliant best and he won battle after battle with weak and inexperienced forces pitted against seasoned and seemingly innumerable enemies.

Finally, however, the numbers told and he was forced to abdicate by his marshals on 6 April 1814. He gave a final farewell to his Old Guard at Fontainbleau on 20 April and chose 600 men to go into exile with him on Elba.

On the island Bonaparte plotted his return and taking advantage of lax security and in the knowledge there was a growing resentment of the restored Bourbons and Louis XVIII, he landed in France in early March of 1815.

Despite being branded an Enemy of Humanity by his enemies, the French people flocked to him and within months he had rebuilt his army for the expected arrival of the armies of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and Britain.

Rather than wait he launched a lightning campaign into Belgium in the hope of catching the British, under the Duke of Wellington, and the Prussians, under Field Marshal Blucher, off guard.

The plan worked, but a series of command errors by subordinates blew the opportunities offered and despite victory at Ligny and a tactical draw at Quatre Bras, he was defeated at Waterloo.

Exiled a second time, the man who ruled Europe spent his last six years on a small island in the South Atlantic called St Helena.

His death in 1821 brought relief to the royal houses of Europe and it was only in 1840 that his body was allowed to return to his beloved France.

You must be french....

I'm willing to bet a couple of my friends and I could take out your little Legion Entrangere with a paintball gun and 20 bucks

I will bet you $10,000. Now get at it.

This kind of thing is exactly the problem that I have with nearly all UN operations. If the fighting begins again in a big way, what will the UN forces do? Given thier small numbers and the fact they they don't seem to want to facor one side over another, what can they do? The answer, nothing. This sort of thing is why I think the UN should stick to reiefe efforts and debate, it is good at those things, but sending soldiers into a combat zone to stay between two factions and try to play referee is stupid and always was.

Hmmm the French Vs. the UN, WHO WILL WIN?????

Here's how delicate the situation is.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=231968
My advice: unless they are extremely committed, they better get the hell outta there. But if they are committed to Cote d'Ivoire, more power to them. Let's just hope that, if they are, Chiraq can survive the French during the inevitable "body bag shock" stage.

Sorry Sdaeriji, but you must remember, Napoleon was defeated. Can't be really that great when you are a two time loser. Sure he may have been brilliant, but he lost. :)

Nice.

After all, the standard US complaint is that other countries don't do enough to help quell hot-spots around the world. And here is a combined French/UN mission trying to stop a civil war (and doing it pretty damned succesfully for the past year I might add), and you want to insult them for that too.



The old "no matter what you do we'll insult you for it" tact.

Real mature.

While I think the poster you responded to was being asinine, it's normally the international complaint (pre-W) that the US wasn't "engaged" ...such as the Balkans.

You must be french....

I'm willing to bet a couple of my friends and I could take out your little Legion Entrangere with a paintball gun and 20 bucksDOubtful, the Legion is usually acknowledged at one of the world's best forces especially in "unconventional warfare". And the fact that the Legion is mostly non-Frenchmen can only be considered to have improved their quality. Admittedly the quality may have declined a bit since they've stopped accepting murderers, but they usually wound up killing or discharging the murderers anyway. Any force that kills off 10% of its members in training is going to be pretty tough. Unless your friends are commandos from some of the top notch groups, they are not going to have much luck against the Legion.

And no, I am not French.

Sorry Sdaeriji, but you must remember, Napoleon was defeated. Can't be really that great when you are a two time loser. Sure he may have been brilliant, but he lost. :)

Everyone has lost at least once or twice. Even Alexander didn't win every battle. If those are your qualifications then everyone has sucked.

But all that doesn't matter, as far as the yanks are concerned the millions at Verdun died from cowardice...

First, Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France
1769-1821
Is the only guy people ever go to when France is slammed for their ability on the battle field.
The Modern French have a proven lack of WILL on the battle field, not intelligence. To be honest, I would even say that is stretching it, they just dont fight a battle they cant win, they surrender and resist. I mean give the French some credit(Not Just Bonaparte).

Second as to this particular issue, i sincerely hope the French do not go to war.
I support the troops here that are serving their country, and I hope the French peace keepers can get the job done.
I dont want to see the French have to prove themselves, that would mean more people die.
It is real, real bombs bullets, and freedoms.
I hope the French talk their way through this incident, because if they have to start shooting, it could degrade rather quickly.

I just heard some rowdy, drunken German tourist have captured Paris. They are marching under the Arch De Capitulation now.

LMAO

Sorry Sdaeriji, but you must remember, Napoleon was defeated. Can't be really that great when you are a two time loser. Sure he may have been brilliant, but he lost. :)
Your retarded, period.
Name one general in history who never lost a battle, and I will name a general who never fought a battle.

But all that doesn't matter, as far as the yanks are concerned the millions at Verdun died from cowardice...

Not at all. I believe they fought valiantly. It was later in WW2 when they started mass-producing white flags.

They did a good job of holding the Germans back in WW1, with help from the British. We just came in later to give an extra hand.

Hmmm the French Vs. the UN, WHO WILL WIN?????

What are you talking about?? They're best friends.

DOubtful, the Legion is usually acknowledged at one of the world's best forces especially in "unconventional warfare". And the fact that the Legion is mostly non-Frenchmen can only be considered to have improved their quality. Admittedly the quality may have declined a bit since they've stopped accepting murderers, but they usually wound up killing or discharging the murderers anyway. Any force that kills off 10% of its members in training is going to be pretty tough. Unless your friends are commandos from some of the top notch groups, they are not going to have much luck against the Legion.

And no, I am not French.

Granted my friends are not commandos however my plan is pretty simple.
spend 20 bucks and get the cheapest booze I can find get every man drunk one night, the rest is easier than you think.

DOubtful, the Legion is usually acknowledged at one of the world's best forces especially in "unconventional warfare". And the fact that the Legion is mostly non-Frenchmen can only be considered to have improved their quality. Admittedly the quality may have declined a bit since they've stopped accepting murderers, but they usually wound up killing or discharging the murderers anyway. Any force that kills off 10% of its members in training is going to be pretty tough. Unless your friends are commandos from some of the top notch groups, they are not going to have much luck against the Legion.

And no, I am not French.

That is how the legion is depicted by french government.

However I suggest you read one of the many books by ex-legionaires - Mouthful of Rocks by Christian Jennings for example. The foreign legion has no unit co-hesion, extremely poor moral and its troops are constantly on the verge of mutiny or desertion.

They days of Koloweze and den bein phu, are long gone.

Granted my friends are not commandos however my plan is pretty simple.
spend 20 bucks and get the cheapest booze I can find get every man drunk one night, the rest is easier than you think.
You've obviously never served.
You couldnt get a DevilDog buzzed up for 20$, more or less drunk.
You and your friends couldnt out drink a Cpl. in the motorpool if you drank in shifts.

Come on guys, the whole "ooh, french are weak at fighting, tee hee" joke is overdone and immature. Seriously, grow up. Avoiding the fight isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of intelligence. If Kennedy had given in to the generals during the Cuban Missile Crisis, America and Russia would have been destroyed, as well as much of the rest of the world. He wasn't being weak, he was strong and very intelligent. A weak man would have given in.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

You've obviously never served.
You couldnt get a DevilDog buzzed up for 20$, more or less drunk.
You and your friends couldnt out drink a Cpl. in the motorpool if you drank in shifts.
These arn't marines were talking about here(and I assume by devildog you mean marines), I have great respect for the marines and would never even joke about offing them, we are however talking about the french foriegn legion.

First, Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France
1769-1821
Is the only guy people ever go to when France is slammed for their ability on the battle field.
What about Ney and similar leaders who were eclipsed by Napoleon?

Granted my friends are not commandos however my plan is pretty simple.
spend 20 bucks and get the cheapest booze I can find get every man drunk one night, the rest is easier than you think.
There not like you. They ain't light weights, and can hold their drink.

Granted my friends are not commandos however my plan is pretty simple.
spend 20 bucks and get the cheapest booze I can find get every man drunk one night, the rest is easier than you think.Well the cheapest booze is a good start, but the Legionaires are used to drinking mass quantities of booze distilled from anything they can find, so 20 bucks is not going to be enough to get more than one legonaire drunk.

Conceptualists, Galaxian warrior interesting somehow I have this nagging doubt that you drink at all your probably what 12.

Well the cheapest booze is a good start, but the Legionaires are used to drinking mass quantities of booze distilled from anything they can find, so 20 bucks is not going to be enough to get more than one legonaire drunk.

It's already been said, plz try to think of a new one next time makes my life more fun

These arn't marines were talking about here(and I assume by devildog you mean marines), I have great respect for the marines and would never even joke about offing them, we are however talking about the french foriegn legion.
Because anyone who fights for the French is fair game?

Conceptualists, Galaxian warrior interesting somehow I have this nagging doubt that you drink at all your probably what 12.
Try 20 (on Thursday).

I'd liek to see you come over to Britian were we drink proper beer, and see if you could out drink me or any of my friends ;)

Because anyone who fights for the French is fair game?

*sigh* will anyone stop getting all indignant for one second and look back to how this started, as sarcasm.

that aside you boys seem up for a fight so i'd have to say that any frenchie is yes fair game.

Conceptualists, Galaxian warrior interesting somehow I have this nagging doubt that you drink at all your probably what 12.

Just face the fact that you couldn't outdrink any soldier even if they were already passed out drunk.

Not at all. I believe they fought valiantly. It was later in WW2 when they started mass-producing white flags.

They did a good job of holding the Germans back in WW1, with help from the British. We just came in later to give an extra hand.

:rolleyes:
And this is proof of cowardice? There were French soldiers on the beaches of normandy too.

Try 20 (on Thursday).

just admit your a kid with no life and no car liek me rather than bieng a 20 year old loser with no lifa and no car.
(hes gonna come back saying he has a great job and a great car)

Because anyone who fights for the French is fair game?

No, the yanks holding the guns are "holy", the rest are worthless... Didn't you know?

I'm just hoping that the UN/French forces manage to resolve this thing without going to war. However, if they do I hope they whip the everliving shit out of the rebels, set up 30,000 French regulars there, fund the government, and turn it into a puppet state, just so Bush can see how it is really done, and by the French no less.

Just face the fact that you couldn't outdrink any soldier even if they were already passed out drunk.

Now I'm curious when did I say i'd out drink anyone?
point is it doesnt take a whole lot of druck soldiers to cause alot of problems.

*sigh* will anyone stop getting all indignant for one second and look back to how this started, as sarcasm.

that aside you boys seem up for a fight so i'd have to say that any frenchie is yes fair game.
You think you are the only one who can be sarcastic :)

I just heard some rowdy, drunken German tourist have captured Paris. They are marching under the Arch De Capitulation now.

You know, after someone has as many nations deleted as you have had, the next punishment is an IP ban. I suggest you be very careful.



http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

That is how the legion is depicted by french government.

However I suggest you read one of the many books by ex-legionaires - Mouthful of Rocks by Christian Jennings for example. The foreign legion has no unit co-hesion, extremely poor moral and its troops are constantly on the verge of mutiny or desertion.

They days of Koloweze and den bein phu, are long gone.Oh I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge all of these faults in the legion, in fact if this turned into a discussion of the merits of the legion I intended to present this myself. However this presents the difficulty of classifying an orgainzation like the Legion, it is not good as a military unit in conventional wars, but is perfect for unconventional wars. Aside from a mutiny, the Ivory coast situation is exactly what the Legion is intended for. The Legion is not supposed to be a cohesive group for the application of carefully measured increments of force, but as a blunt hammer to instill terror. The better example that the Legion is perfectly capable of is Algeria, although you do want to watch out for another mutiny.

You think you are the only one who can be sarcastic :)
I am the only one who can, it's devine writ from God.

just admit your a kid with no life and no car liek me rather than bieng a 20 year old loser with no lifa and no car.
(hes gonna come back saying he has a great job and a great car)
What do you want me to do. Scan my drivers license onto and post it?

Not a loser, have a life. But your right about the car, I don't have one. Not that I need one. I live within walking distance of everywhere I want to go.

EDIT: I have had a great job, but you probably wouldn't think it was all that. But I enjoyed it (OK, it was a cleaner, but the pay wasn't too bad, and I got on well witht the people I worked with). All in all, no [or very few] jobs are good

Your retarded, period.
Name one general in history who never lost a battle, and I will name a general who never fought a battle.
Belisarius. No direct losses, ever.

And in all honesty the french military is accaully a close knit basically trained force. And if we do look back in history The french were the world power under Louis 13 to 16

anyway ive got to check out so nice debating with you guys.

Why do you guys always have to be mean to France? Wow, they lost World War 2, big deal. The U.S. lost Vietnam and Korea. Every country loses wars Germany lost two world wars. Poland hasn't won a war in a really long time. So don't judge countries on their military strength or military victories.

Oh I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge all of these faults in the legion, in fact if this turned into a discussion of the merits of the legion I intended to present this myself. However this presents the difficulty of classifying an orgainzation like the Legion, it is not good as a military unit in conventional wars, but is perfect for unconventional wars. Aside from a mutiny, the Ivory coast situation is exactly what the Legion is intended for. The Legion is not supposed to be a cohesive group for the application of carefully measured increments of force, but as a blunt hammer to instill terror. The better example that the Legion is perfectly capable of is Algeria, although you do want to watch out for another mutiny.

I also forgot to point out that upon intial deployment the legion suffers massive attrition in its NCO ranks because the legionaires all "settle up" with the Corporals. That's pretty f'ed up.

I also forgot to point out that upon intial deployment the legion suffers massive attrition in its NCO ranks because the legionaires all "settle up" with the Corporals. That's pretty f'ed up.Yep, not exactly a nice bunch of people.

Why do you guys always have to be mean to France? Wow, they lost World War 2, big deal. The U.S. lost Vietnam and Korea. Every country loses wars Germany lost two world wars. Poland hasn't won a war in a really long time. So don't judge countries on their military strength or military victories.

Because the French, despite having been saved in WWI by the Brits, and WWII by the Yanks, stomp around acting like people should listen to them. Plus they are all Nazi collaborators at heart.

I also forgot to point out that upon intial deployment the legion suffers massive attrition in its NCO ranks because the legionaires all "settle up" with the Corporals. That's pretty f'ed up.
They blatantly don't settle up with the corporals.

:rolleyes:
And this is proof of cowardice? There were French soldiers on the beaches of normandy too.
Yeah, and now those beaches are a tourist destination...for swimming! They have beach houses littering the backdrop, with little plaques saying "here was the original cemetary, which was moved *insert recent name*. Hell, I probably have some pictures from when I was there showing some of those houses that had burnt out overgrown bunkers still in their backyard.

Yep, not exactly a nice bunch of people.

Well from what I've read, the Corporals bring this upon themselves somewhat.

There's a saying among the French Military and I'm sure it extends to quite a few other militaries as well, "The French Foreign Legion is the most feared unit to have never won a major campaign." Mind you, a Frenchman told me this, so I don't doubt its validity.

Because the French, despite having been saved in WWI by the Brits, and WWII by the Yanks, stomp around acting like people should listen to them. Plus they are all Nazi collaborators at heart.
Who let this guy into the thread? Do you even know where France is? They are clearly not all Nazi collaborators - no more so than you, homeboy.

Why do you guys always have to be mean to France? Wow, they lost World War 2, big deal. The U.S. lost Vietnam and Korea. Every country loses wars Germany lost two world wars. Poland hasn't won a war in a really long time. So don't judge countries on their military strength or military victories.
Well the main point is that France claims to be a major world power (it is a permanent member of the security council), yet it has wasn't a war since Napoleon, a Corsican, led its armies. It has since lost (major wars, not counting colonial struggles, including Vietnam): The Franco-Prussian War, WW1, and WW2. It hasn't engaged in any significant warfare, and won, in approximately 2 centuries.

(EDIT for minor spelling error, pointed out to me by some brilliant adolescent whom is of course perfect in every way)

ita permanent member
Just Because you're italian doesn't make you better than the rest of us.

Well the main point is that France claims to be a major world power (ita permanent member of the security council), yet it has wasn't a war since Napoleon, a Corsican, led its armies. It has since lost (major wars, not counting colonial struggles, including Vietnam): The Franco-Prussian War, WW1, and WW2. It hasn't engaged in any significant warfare, and won, in approximately 2 centuries.

It won WWI and WWII.

Your retarded, period.
Name one general in history who never lost a battle, and I will name a general who never fought a battle.

Wellington springs to mind . . . .

It won WWI and WWII.
Read up on those wars. France sure as hell didn't win, they got bailed out in WW1 when their morale was so low their troops had already mutinied, and refused to go on the offensive any longer, and in WW2 they surrendered, and had over half their country, including the entire Atlantic Coastline, surrended to the Germans.

I wouldn't call either of those a victorious war.

Rofl, man France should just give up now and save some peoples lives.

After-all America is going to save them for the 10th time.

Horses arse- Britain saves France America saves Britain and Australia and New Zealand do all the dog work.
France has been in IC a while think the FFL is there

Read up on those wars. France sure as hell didn't win, they got bailed out in WW1 when their morale was so low their troops had already mutinied, and refused to go on the offensive any longer, and in WW2 they surrendered, and had over half their country, including the entire Atlantic Coastline, surrended to the Germans.

I wouldn't call either of those a victorious war.

They won both wars. Plain and simple. They were on the winning side of both wars. You don't set victory conditions for them; this isn't some kind of PC strategy game.

Wellington springs to mind . . . .

Nope Wellington lost in Spain Siege of Carbdo....
Marlborough maybe.

Nope Wellington lost in Spain Siege of Carbdo....
Marlborough maybe.

Damnit! I forgot that one! *cries*

Yeah, and now those beaches are a tourist destination...for swimming! They have beach houses littering the backdrop, with little plaques saying "here was the original cemetary, which was moved *insert recent name*. Hell, I probably have some pictures from when I was there showing some of those houses that had burnt out overgrown bunkers still in their backyard.

And in here, every year we get a bunch of British tourists that re-enact famous battles from the Viking-era...
But I still don't see your point?

They won both wars. Plain and simple. They were on the winning side of both wars. You don't set victory conditions for them; this isn't some kind of PC strategy game.
Nobody said anything about being on the winning side. They asked if the French had won any wars. They didn't. The Allies won the war, the French had their lunches handed to them on three consecutive occasions.

I answered the question that was being asked.

Nobody said anything about being on the winning side. They asked if the French had won any wars. They didn't. The Allies won the war, the French had their lunches handed to them on three consecutive occasions.

I answered the question that was being asked.

And the French were part of the Allies. If the Allies won, then the French won. How do you think they got their seat on the UN Security Council? How they fared in the war does not determine whether or not they won.

Nobody said anything about being on the winning side. They asked if the French had won any wars. They didn't. The Allies won the war, the French had their lunches handed to them on three consecutive occasions.

I answered the question that was being asked.

Name the Countrys that Contributed Five Divisions or more to the War Effort in Western Europe.

1 - United States
2 - British
3 - Canada
4 - France

From where Im sitting (united states, 25 years of age), France contributed to the winning of the war. Dont forget The Resistance - they contributed quite a bit to the war effort.

And the French were part of the Allies. If the Allies won, then the French won. How do you think they got their seat on the UN Security Council? How they fared in the war does not determine whether or not they won.
Answer me this: How can the French be considered a victor in a war when they signed an Armistice that ceded over half their territory, and their entire coastline on the Atlantic Ocean? Explain that to me. Being part of an alliance doesn't mean you won the war, period.

Your retarded, period.
Name one general in history who never lost a battle, and I will name a general who never fought a battle.

He lost two wars lame-brain. He was kicked out of France twice.

Name the Countrys that Contributed Five Divisions or more to the War Effort in Western Europe.

1 - United States
2 - British
3 - Canada
4 - France

From where Im sitting (united states, 25 years of age), France contributed to the winning of the war. Dont forget The Resistance - they contributed quite a bit to the war effort.
Name the dates those countries had those divisions in the field, and you'll see that France's have this weird little bubble through the main body of World War Two, when nearly half their country had been ceded to Germany.

Answer me this: How can the French be considered a victor in a war when they signed an Armistice that ceded over half their territory, and their entire coastline on the Atlantic Ocean? Explain that to me. Being part of an alliance doesn't mean you won the war, period.

Because they were on the winning side of the war.

Who would you say won WWII, then? Everyone was involved in an alliance, does that mean that no one won the war?

Name the Countrys that Contributed Five Divisions or more to the War Effort in Western Europe.

1 - United States
2 - British
3 - Canada
4 - France

From where Im sitting (united states, 25 years of age), France contributed to the winning of the war. Dont forget The Resistance - they contributed quite a bit to the war effort.

Let's see... I believe the only nation in that list who doesn't qualify is Canada. For example, in the Normandy invasion there were seven American divisions, two British divisions, a Canadian division, and a composite brigade made up of troops from the occupied territories.

Because they were on the winning side of the war.

Who would you say won WWII, then? Everyone was involved in an alliance, does that mean that no one won the war?
If I had to say who won the war, in individual nations, I would say that the UK, the US, and the USSR won the war. Lets take a contemporary example.

The United States has a multinational coalition in Iraq. Now, is the United States occupying Iraq, or is it a multinational coalition that is occupying it? At one point do contributions became legitimate?

Frankly put, France was KOed, so to speak, by the Germans at the onset of World War Two. They were out of action until they were liberated by the UK and the US. I wouldn't say they won anything.

Belisarius. No direct losses, ever.

531: at Callinicum on the Euphrates River. He wasn't badly defeated, but he was forced to escape. Though he did kick arse.

Your retarded, period.
Name one general in history who never lost a battle, and I will name a general who never fought a battle.

Alexander the great never lost a battle and in certain battles never lost a single man... Sry but you lose. :sniper:

Let's see... I believe the only nation in that list who doesn't qualify is Canada. For example, in the Normandy invasion there were seven American divisions, two British divisions, a Canadian division, and a composite brigade made up of troops from the occupied territories.

Normandy isnt the entire war. Hell - if you look at Normandy as the entire war, then the US lost the war. ONLY the Canadians achieved their Day One Goals.

Normandy isnt the entire war. Hell - if you look at Normandy as the entire war, then the US lost the war. ONLY the Canadians achieved their Day One Goals.

I was challenged to name coutries other than France that contributed more than five divisions to the western front, I did. And FYI, the Normady operation lasted an entire week and was planned that way from the beginning. We certainly didn't take 10,000 casualties in the first day.

Germany nearly KO'd Russia with half of his army, the lesser half even. In fact it wasn't even the Russians that beat back the Germans, but their intolerable winter. If Hitler would have decided to invade Britain with the other half of his army, instead of thinking that he could bomb them into giving up, he may have taken over Britain as well. So saying that French are pussies because Germany rolled over them when there was only one front is like saying Joe Frazier was a pussy for getting beat by Ali. Germany kicked everyone's ass until about mid-1943. France just happened to be in the wrong place and defended the wrong border.

Conceptualists, Galaxian warrior interesting somehow I have this nagging doubt that you drink at all your probably what 12.
You call him twelve?
Yet you think 20 bones will cover getting a French Soldier drunk?
I dont you mind voicing your opinion-I mind you embarrassing Americans.

Belisarius. No direct losses, ever.
I said Battles not wars.

French Shoot Down Ivory Coast Warplanes
By PAULINE BAX, Associated Press Writer
.


Sorry to give another source then your anti French racisme:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivory Coast Warplanes Bomb French UN (the ones that evacuated 1000's of US citizens) Troops, Killing Eight
By Peter Murphy and Silvia Aloisi, Reuters

ABIDJAN (Nov. 6) - Eight French soldiers were killed when Ivory Coast government warplanes bombed French positions in the rebel-held town of Bouake on Saturday, a United Nations official said.

The French military retaliated by destroying two Ivorian Sukhoi fighter jets on the ground at Yamoussoukro airport, a French military spokesman in Abidjan said.

Government warplanes carried out bombing raids across the rebel-held north for a third day on Saturday, fueling fears of a slide back into full-blown hostilities in the world's top cocoa grower which could threaten a fragile peace in the region.

"Military sources from the U.N. said that two Sukhoi (warplanes) belonging to the Ivorian army have just been destroyed by the French after these aircraft targeted and hit a French target," said Jean-Victor Nkolo, spokesman for the U.N. mission in Ivory Coast.

"Eight were killed and 23 wounded. All were French military," he said.

The French military spokesman said the French barracks in the rebel stronghold of Bouake had been hit, but he had no information on casualties.

Government warplanes attacked Bouake shortly after French and U.N. officials heard reports of machinegun and artillery fire around the city.

"Bombs were dropped by planes (around 1300 GMT) ... and we heard sporadic machine gunfire at the southern entrance to the city," a U.N. official said by telephone from the U.N. peacekeeping base in Bouake.

Ivorian army officers have warned a land invasion would follow the air raids to chase out the rebels who have controlled the north since the war that followed their failed attempt to oust President Laurent Gbagbo in September 2002.

Some 10,000 French and U.N. soldiers police the buffer zone around a cease-fire line that separates the rebels from the government-run south.

U.N. peacekeepers stopped two army convoys trying to cross into the buffer zone on Friday, but rebel leaders have accused the multinational force of not doing more to counter the government attacks.

In the northwestern town of Man around a thousand protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at French forces, venting anger at what they saw as the former colonial power's slowness to intervene.

"Two of our vehicles were burned and destroyed. Three stores containing food, water and petrol were burned down," said Henry Aussavy, spokesman for the French troops in Ivory Coast.

Aid workers in the rebel-held western town of Danane, just 27 km (17 miles) from the border with Liberia, said they were preparing for an imminent attack.

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Friday the U.N. may beef up the mandate of the peacekeeping troops to prevent fighting between government forces and rebels.

"The secretary general will be left with no choice but to give the forces specific rules of engagement that will allow them to deal with the situation," U.N. spokesman Nkolo said.

"Something is being worked out as we speak and could be delivered today or tomorrow," he said.

The air raids have so far targeted Bouake and at least three towns to the east and west, the first major hostilities since a truce signed in May last year ended fighting which killed thousands and uprooted over a million.

The United Nations said 20 civilians and two rebels were killed in Friday's strikes alone.


11/06/04 10:41 ET
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041106104309990002&_mpc=news%2e6&cid=842

Rofl, man France should just give up now and save some peoples lives.

After-all America is going to save them for the 10th time.

Morron, you forgot that those French troops saved and evacuated thousends of US citizens there while your government did nothing for them but sending a ship. US did not move in but let the French UN soldiers with a rather weak mandate regarding self defence.

Typical ignorant US Republican CRWN anti French (and EU) rascisme. Inform yourself and see what those troops did for the people that live under your "government".

You must be french....

I'm willing to bet a couple of my friends and I could take out your little Legion Entrangere with a paintball gun and 20 bucks

That is why they train the US mountain troops :rolleyes:

Jezus, you are such...bible belt informed :D

Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France
1769-1821


One of the most brilliant individuals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte was a masterful soldier, an unequalled grand tactician and a superb administrator. He was also utterly ruthless, a dictator and, later in his career, thought he could do no wrong.

Not a Frenchman by birth, Napoleon Bonaparte was born at Ajaccio on Corsica - only just sold to France by the Italian state of Genoa - on 15 August 1769 and learnt French at the school of Autun and later the military academy at Brienne. He never fully mastered French and his spelling left a lot to be desired.

The revolutionary fever that was spreading when Bonaparte was a teenager allowed a talented individual the opportunity to rise far beyond what could have been achieved only a few years previously.

His first real military opportunity came as a captain of artillery at the siege of Toulon, where he expertly seized crucial forts and was able to bombard the British naval and land forces, eventually forcing them to sail away.

Now a brigadier-general, Bonaparte served in the army campaigning in Italy but found himself arrested and jailed for being an associate of the younger brother of Maximilien Robespierre.

With no position for him after his release, Bonaparte thought about joining the Turkish army and even joining a naval expedition to Australia, but became involved with a member of the Directory, Paul Barras, who used the young man's zeal to put down a royalist mob in 1795 with the now legendary "whiff of grapeshot".

With his loyalty and ruthlessness proven, the next year Bonaparte took up command of the Army of Italy and set off on a campaign that was to take him to absolute power in France and Europe.

Initially treated with suspicion, and not a little contempt, by the older generals he superceded, Bonaparte won over his badly treated soldiers with promises of great things to come and a large helping of personal bravery. Like Caesar, he was not afraid to get into the thick of the fighting to inspire his men.

In a series of battles that included such as Montenotte, Mondovi, Arcola and Rivoli, Bonaparte swept the board of ageing Austrian generals and established himself as one of the leading soldiers of his time.

After masterminding the Peace of Campo Formio, Bonaparte returned to Paris where he took command of the Army of England, an imposing force neutered by England's wooden walls of its navy.

Desperate to be both at Britain and pushing his own reputation, Bonaparte planned an expedition to Egypt to threaten his foe's trading routes. He sailed from Toulon in 1798 and, after capturing Malta, made it to Egypt in early July.

The campaign began brilliantly when he smashed the power of the ruling Mamelukes at the Battle of the Pyramids, but was crippled when Nelson's hound-pack fleet finally caught up with the French navy at Aboukir (Battle of the Nile) and sank all but four of the 17-ship force.

Stranded and with suspect supply lines, Bonaparte moved into Syria and won the battle of Mt Tabor before being halted by fierce and stubborn resistance at Acre.

Stricken with disease and wary of a mass revolt in Cairo, the French made a horrendous march through the deserts of the Sinai, but arrived at Aboukir in good enough condition to crush another Turkish force.

Realising the potential success of his campaign was now limited, if not impossible, Bonaparte decided to abandon his army and get back to the centre of power - Paris - and make sure his position had not been undermined.

Popular with the people, Bonaparte found the loathed Directory very cool towards his surprise arrival and no doubt took pleasure in their discomfort when he, Abbe Sieyes and Roger Ducos seized power in the Coup de Brumaire, which saw them share power as equal consuls. Within months Bonaparte was First Consul and had eased his "equals" into early retirement.

The next stage in Bonaparte's career came in 1800, when he again moved into Italy with another brilliant manouevre that saw him lead the French army over the Alps and surprise the occupying Austrians.

It almost proved to be a blunder - as Bonaparte was in turn caught by surprise at the tenacity of General Melas who attacked him at Marengo. Holding on for grim life the situation was saved for Bonaparte by General Louis Desaix's arrival with reinforcements and what was a lost battle became a stunning victory for the First Consul.

Together with the victory at Hohenlinden, Marengo forced the Austrians to the table and the resulting Peace of Leoben in 1801 and Peace of Amiens (1802) brought to an end a decade of revolution, strife and war.

He also got France back in to the good books of Rome through the Concordat with the Pope, which eased the restrictions and penalties imposed on the church by the Revolution.

Bonaparte's popularity was now unprecedented and he was voted Consul for life. Setting about much-needed civil reforms he turned upside down the old system of running France and introduced the Civil Code.

But all was not safe for Bonaparte and there were several attempts on his life, including a bomb set off in Paris as his carriage went by.

Still, in 1804, the general felt confident and secure enough to declare himself Emperor and the next day created the Marshalate for his most trusted and talented soldiers.

Bonaparte waited until 2 December for his coronation where, with much pomp and ceremony, he crowned himself.

While affairs within France were on a high, Bonaparte committed a serious error when the determined Duc d'Enghien, a Royalist figurehead, was kidnapped from neutral Baden, tried without a lawyer defending him and then executed. The event turned Europe's monarchies forever against him and led to the formation of the Third Coalition to try to bring down his regime.

Bonaparte reacted by amassing a huge army - the first Grande Armee - on the coastline of Europe with the intention of invading Britain but, fortunately for those opposing him, he was never given the opportunity as Admiral Horatio Nelson smashed his naval ambitions at Trafalgar in 1805.

While his political radar may have been off with the D'Enghien affair, his military one was not and knowing his enemies were mobilising against him he prepared a pre-emptive strike.

Secretly redeploying the 200,000-man Grand Armee, Bonaparte had them march by various routes until they were in striking distance of Austria's General Mack, who was waiting at Ulm for the arrival of the Russian army under General Kutusov.

The French manouevre worked brilliantly and General Mack found himself trapped within the city of Ulm with little sign of Kutusov. He made two major attempts to extricate his 27,000 men - at Elchingen and Haslach - but in the end had little choice but to surrender.

With the way to Vienna clear, Bonaparte occupied the enemy capital and then set out after the Russians and the remaining Austrian forces.

He caught them at Austerlitz where, with tactical brilliance, he tricked them in to attacking him and proceeded to destroy them.

The victory led to the Peace of Pressburg and Austria was forced to give up huge areas of influence in Germany and Italy.

With Europe pacified, the French emperor once again turned his eyes towards Britain and developed a plan to wage economic war - the Continental System - on his closest enemy.

With the large number of states under either his control or influence, Bonaparte decided that by excluding Britain from trading with them he could hurt that nation's economy sufficiently to stop it bankrolling more wars on mainland Europe.

Reluctantly adopted by Europe, it didn't take long for the Continental System to begin another war. In order to stop Portugal trading with Britain he sent an army through his ally Spain to enforce the blockade.

Then, inexplicably, he used the presence of French troops in Spain to persuade the King Charles IV to step down and be replaced by Joseph Bonaparte.

The reaction of the Spanish people could have been predicted and an uprising broke out that was to spread across the entire nation and last for six years.

Bonaparte's miscalculation was to cost him more than 200,000 casualties and be a constant drain upon his resources. It was aptly dubbed "the Spanish Ulcer".

Worse was to come as a French army was forced to surrender to a Spanish force at Bailen, destroying the notion of French invincibility, and Britain landed a small army under Arthur Wellesley in Portugal.

It quickly defeated General Junot's Army of Portugal and forced Bonaparte to return to the field at the head of a hastily assembled force.

His campaign was highly successful, defeating the Spanish and putting down the major revolt and he managed to force the British, now under Sir John Moore, into a scrambling retreat to Corunna and evacuation by ship.

Bonaparte's success, however, failed to impress the Austrians and, by 1809, the leaders in Vienna felt confident enough to form the Fifth Coalition with Britain and move against France's Bavarian allies.

Caught by surprise the French, under Marshal Berthier, initially were in serious trouble against the capable Archduke Charles, but the arrival of the emperor bolstered confidence and began to set things to rights.

The French won the battles of Abensberg and Eckmuhl, almost lost Aspern-Essling after Bonaparte's advanced units became trapped against the flooded Danube River with the entire Austrian army bearing down on them, and then defeated Charles at Wagram.

Peace followed and was cemented when Bonaparte, now divorced from Josephine, married Marie-Louise of Austria.

Between 1810 and 1812 tensions between France and Russia kept increasing and, when Tsar Alexander refused to back down despite an army of 600,000 men on his border, Bonaparte ordered an invasion.

Despite being well planned the campaign was doomed by the sheer distances that had to be marched.

Bonaparte was hoping to force a decisive battle soon after entering Russia, but the defenders traded space for time by reteating. There were bloody, but indecisive, battles at Smolensk and Borodino and, when the French finally reached Moscow, they found that the Russians had preferred to set fire to it rather than let the French have it.

Still hoping for peace negotiations, Bonaparte delayed leaving the capital for too long and on his march back to France disaster hit the Grande Armee.

Appalling cold, lack of supplies and constant attacks by Russian forces whittled away the once-magnificent army so that when it finally stumbled out of Russia its survivors numbered fewer than 20,000.

Seeing the French almost on their knees the revenge-seeking Prussians broke their alliance with Paris and, together with Sweden, joined the Tsar's campaign to kick the French out of Germany.

The 1813 Campaign through Germany saw a weakened Bonaparte fight and win the battles of Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden, but the sheer weight of numbers caught up with him at Leipzig, where some 200,000 Frenchmen took on 400,000 enemy troops in a massive three-day battle.

Defeated, and his forces also facing an unbeaten and advancing British army in Spain, Bonaparte gathered strength for his last roll of the die - the battle for France.

The following campaign saw Bonaparte return to his brilliant best and he won battle after battle with weak and inexperienced forces pitted against seasoned and seemingly innumerable enemies.

Finally, however, the numbers told and he was forced to abdicate by his marshals on 6 April 1814. He gave a final farewell to his Old Guard at Fontainbleau on 20 April and chose 600 men to go into exile with him on Elba.

On the island Bonaparte plotted his return and taking advantage of lax security and in the knowledge there was a growing resentment of the restored Bourbons and Louis XVIII, he landed in France in early March of 1815.

Despite being branded an Enemy of Humanity by his enemies, the French people flocked to him and within months he had rebuilt his army for the expected arrival of the armies of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and Britain.

Rather than wait he launched a lightning campaign into Belgium in the hope of catching the British, under the Duke of Wellington, and the Prussians, under Field Marshal Blucher, off guard.

The plan worked, but a series of command errors by subordinates blew the opportunities offered and despite victory at Ligny and a tactical draw at Quatre Bras, he was defeated at Waterloo.

Exiled a second time, the man who ruled Europe spent his last six years on a small island in the South Atlantic called St Helena.

His death in 1821 brought relief to the royal houses of Europe and it was only in 1840 that his body was allowed to return to his beloved France.


And he got defeated by an English footwear designer.

These arn't marines were talking about here(and I assume by devildog you mean marines), I have great respect for the marines and would never even joke about offing them, we are however talking about the french foriegn legion.

1. Most marines that try (for one or another reason) to pass the tests of that French elite bunch fail the tests :eek:

2. Lots of US troops are only considered amongst our native marines/seals aso. if they passed the training for US troops at the legion (jungle war aso.)

3. Do remember that it was the legion that did the hardest work during dessert storm, when it infiltrated the enemy positions and killed the elite troops of Saddam during the first week of dessert storm.
But I understand that you don't understand it because ignorant Texas "CRWN" like ya where babbies then. :p

4. Most legionairs eat a US marine as breakfast (that is only during peacetime).

5. We extreme right wing republicans that think that Bush is a commie and CRNW like you are pussies lack information in the Red States (where you and I live) to say something about those elite forces.

Glad that I have acces to "foreign" media (the blue states).

Name the dates those countries had those divisions in the field, and you'll see that France's have this weird little bubble through the main body of World War Two, when nearly half their country had been ceded to Germany.

Guess that you have to pay us a bottle of Champagne. The French had about 200.000 troops near Monte Cassino and together with the Brits and the extreme brave Aussies, they fought much better and had better results the the US troops.
Just read Matthew Parkers "Monte Cassino 1944" and ya know it.

This is what you don't like to hear in your history revisionist brain. (hmmm, brain :rolleyes: )

Currently we have 4500 French soldiers (Licorne force) + about 6000 UN peacekeepers separating the rebels from the governmental forces.

Gbagbo the Ivory Coast president is reluctant to apply the peace agreements he has signed. In international meetings or in France he speaks peace ... but in his country he makes everything to developp hate against France. Anti-French racial mobs are frequent, the governent is instrumentalizing the so-called "patriots", para-military forces that are brainwashed by anti-French propaganda and often protest by thousands in the streets, shouting that each Ivorian will kill one French (there were many and there are still a certain number of French civilians there) hurling Molotov cocktails and throwing stones at French forces. They feel bitter becasue they think we hinder them to kill the rebels. And the rebels hate us because we prevent them to seize the southern part of the country. In fact we prevented a bloodbath their ...
Several month ago we clashed with the rebels, killing several dozen of them for a dozein lightly WIA on our side. We had also 3 KIA but during a common patrol with their "soldiers" in the framework of the peace agreement. These assholes were drunk and shoot at our troops.

The Ivory coast government had bought many weapons during this "peace" time (T55s, Mil-Mi 24s, Sukhoi 25s etc.) and the aircrafts and helicopters are generally flown by Ukrainian and/or Bielorussian mercenaries. With Su-25s and Mil-Mi 24s, they first attacked the rebels around Bouake : 2 KI and 20 WIA and today they attacked our troops : 8 KIA and 23 WIA.
Our troops destroyed the 2 Sukhois on the ground in Yamoussoukor. Currently French troops are fighting with governmental troops around the Abidjan international airport which has been closed. In the north rebels have attacked French gendarms around Man.
We have sent 2-3 Mirage aircrafts based in Libreville (Gabon) to protect our troops. We also have planes in Chad.

In Ivory coast our troops have no tanks or heavy equipments and only very few Gazelle helicopters with 20mm guns / HOT missiles able to provide CAS. The single AA means are probably a few Mistral SAM and several 20mm AA guns but if needed we have enough troops to deal with the Ivory Coast army .... but certainly not if the whole population fights against us. IMHO we should go away and let those bastards kill themselves together if it is really what they want. Yeah I know, it sounds cynical, but whatever we do, something or nothing, it is always seen as bas by both sides.

Well, I remember that the U.S. pulled out of Somalia over a similar incident and no one gained anything. But, I don't claim to be knowledgable enough to know what to do in this situation.

I know tricky situations, we were in Somalia too.

According to French government : one US citizen have been KIA during the air strike (US SF cooperating with us or civilian ?).
Two companies are sent in reinforcment to protect our 10,000 French civilians still in Ivory coast and French mirage aircrafts have been sent to Libreville in Gabon.
Apparently the combats around the Abidjan airport have ended and several gorvernmental soldiers are WIA.

Our president has ordered the destruction of all the air means that have been used in violation of the cease fire agreement.


Many white people (civilians and diplomatic cars) have been attacked by "civilians" in the streets in Abidjan and a French school has been put on fire according to French TV. If it goes too far and if they kill civilians that would lead to a new kind of Kolwezi perhaps.

Apparently, France is going to send 5 fighters to protect their forces.

Anyone who bitched about France surrendering in WWII is a idiot and a coward who fails to face reality.

The Wehrmacht could have overrun ANY nation at that time - if you´d share a border with them. The only reason why the UK wasn´t overrun was because they had a body of water between them and continental Europe. If Germany would have been in Canda they´d have overrun the US in a matter of months.

Remember: It was the Brits who ABANDONED the French as they were pushed back into the sea. They run like rabbits. Of course Allied propaganda turned the head over heels escape into a heroic act of evacuation. The only reason why the remnants of the expeditionary force wasn´t massacred or forced to surrender was because Hitler actually called his Generals BACK as he still hoped to negotiate a armistice or even a alliance with the UK. Killing a trapped British force at that time might have damaged such a plan, that´s why the political leadership in Germany decided to let them run...

Why?

Because they used a perfectly new way to wage war: Combined arms and armored spearheads - a tactic NO army at that time could have stopped.

French defences have been smashed in a matter of months fighting. The nation was in shock and INVADED, it´s army beaten to a point which made resistance no longer a option.

In order to prevent further human losses and destruction France did the ONLY right thing to do: Surrender. Honorably. By doing so they saved thousands of lives, sure, they gave up their freedom, but they could hope for liberation.

Mind you, at least France had a chance to surrender and was not simply absorbed into the Reich like Holland or Belgium... (no offence to any Dutch or Belgians, but that´s what more or less happened).

So please, shut your dirty mouth and stop bitching about the French. They´re a damn fine people and I hold them in highest regards. Same goes for their army.

For all those right-wing Americans who think it´s cool to bash the French: Shut up, without the French you´d be speaking British by now. Remember? They saved your assed during your rebellion against the rightful and legitimate rule of the British Crown. (*)

(*) For those who didn´t get it, that was sarcasm.

We have ERC-90 light tanks deployed in Ivory coast. Their 90mm gun is powerful enough to engage the dozen T55 tanks and the dozen BMP-1/2 they could face. Our infantry has also enough ATGM (Milan, Eryx) to deal with every kind of vehicle. And if needed we could rapidly have the control of the sky but I think we will not worsen the situation and try to calm all down unless we have to defend ourselves again.

In 2002 the FANCI (Ivory Coast governmental army) had at least :
5x AMX-13
7x ERC-90 Sagaie
16x AML-60/90
10x Mamba (several with a 20mm gun)
16x M3 (I guess these are the old US halftracks)
13x VAB APCs
4x US M-2 105mm howitzers
16x 120mm mortars
16x 20mm AA guns (6 mounted on M3s)
5x 40mm Bofors AA guns
2x Mil-Mi 8V helicopters
about 6800 regular troops

Apparently these are the weapons bought by the Ivory government during 2003 to reinforce their army (according to an other forum) :
10x BMP1/2 APCs
10x T55 MBTs
300x Komet/Konkurs ATGMs (? last Russian models ?)
30,000x C-5KO rockets (?)
5x Chinese 122mm 2C1 guns and 5000 shells
30x ZSU-23 (23mm AA guns)
10,000x AK-47/74 and 36 millions cratridges
10x Neguev MGs
800x RPG-7 and 42,000 rockets
33,000x 40mm grenades for GP25 (grenade launcher mounted on the assault rifles)
100x .50 HMGs
160x mortars of various models
some SA-7 SAM
330x night vision googles
21,000x Chinese 56-1 rifles with 24 millions cartridges
5000x Chinese 56-2 LMGs with 10 millions cartridges
200x Dragunov sniper rifles made in China
50x Chinese 20mm guns
10x Chinese 90mm guns
4x Puma helicopter form Romanian origin
3x Mil-Mi 24 attack helicopters
2x Mig-23s
at least 2 Su-25s ... and 2 for sure destroyed by now.

France did provide aid to the colonists during the Revolution, and for that we are certainly grateful. And it is harsh to criticize the French for falling in WWII, though their defenses were clearly flawed. So I agree with you there Ulrichland. But you go to far by painting American's as some right wing extremist. The current rift between the US and France is a 2 way street. France and Frenchmen have been doing just as much instigating and badmouthing. So I take insult to your 1 sided assualt.

The issue of this stream, however, I believe began with the Ivory Coast Issue. And here the bottom line is that the French and the UN may need help. This issue has come up in the past, often, and the UN (and the US) are always quick to help out with aid, arms, troops, and supplies. Little to no questions asked.

So I would ask our European allies to aid us in Iraq and Afganistan. Whether it was right to enter or not is no longer a useful question. What happens next? That is the question. And I hope the rest of the world understands that Afganistan and Iraq must be stabalized for the security of all. This is what the purpose of the UN was supposed to be, and if it is to be effective, it must become the purpose again.

Try 20 (on Thursday).

I'd liek to see you come over to Britian were we drink proper beer, and see if you could out drink me or any of my friends ;)
How about this ... you and your friends get together with me and my friends, buy a whole bunch of beer made in a third country, and we'll see who ends under the table? Fair enough? :D

Anyone who bitched about France surrendering in WWII is a idiot and a coward who fails to face reality.

The Wehrmacht could have overrun ANY nation at that time - if you´d share a border with them. The only reason why the UK wasn´t overrun was because they had a body of water between them and continental Europe. If Germany would have been in Canda they´d have overrun the US in a matter of months.

.
Point one: The French did what they had to do-live to fight another day.
Point two: If Germany had been where canada is they wouldve been wrecked invading the US.
1.Lack of numbers
2.Armed population-Why does everyone underestimate the resistance that can be put up by an armed civilian populace.

The issue of this stream, however, I believe began with the Ivory Coast Issue. And here the bottom line is that the French and the UN may need help. This issue has come up in the past, often, and the UN (and the US) are always quick to help out with aid, arms, troops, and supplies. Little to no questions asked. .

France did not ask for aid in a conflict that it is capable to handle certainly allone or (better) with its current African UN partners (for once let the Africans work amongst them under the the millitary umbrella of a Western nation that is not American). If France needs millitary UN partners instead of extra French troops, the Belgians (after France, a nation with a lot of experience there), Germany, Spain, Austria amo.will be the first to join the French and African UN troops in Ivory Coast.

No help will be given by the US (nobody asked them also), that is for sure alltough the French evacuated the US civilian population there (remember the US citizens in their jeeps waving French flags and being gratefull whilst evacuated under the french protection).How else is the opinion of the CRWN on NS that never met US citizens that fled Ivory Coast like I did that still thanks the French. Guess it is just anti EU or anti French racisme, old stuff..


So I would ask our European allies to aid us in Iraq and Afganistan. Whether it was right to enter or not is no longer a useful question. What happens next? That is the question. And I hope the rest of the world understands that Afganistan and Iraq must be stabalized for the security of all. This is what the purpose of the UN was supposed to be, and if it is to be effective, it must become the purpose again.

Iraq is a completely different operation and also by size. First it is still a illegal operation, let's not forget that, so their won't be UN troops from France and 91% of the EU countries. Most involved EU nations know by now that it was wrong to support a illegal action outside the UN instead of what happened during Dessert Storm (most EU nations send troops then).
Those troops will go back home now after the recent election of W and regarding the stubordness and incapacy of dealing with the problem by the US, saw by Brittain, Italy, Holland, Poland as a disaster and getting more impopular by the day amongst their citizens that where allready oposed to a war for oil and the wallets of the Bush-Cheney clan (that is the common feeling here).

So no, why should France ask the US for help in a problem that it can handle millitary by its own and here other UN African partners and if needed a little help from real allies in its own continent.

I also think that the US won't ask for French help in Iraq if it would send troops there because they know that the European and world opinion would condem the fact that the other EU superpower (together with the Brits) will be involved in a war that it condemned as illegal by international law. That would be hypocrit.

No solution lies in a better mandate and more African or French troops that can act if needed.

BTW, since the EU (French) UN troops there destroyed the plaines that attacked them, I do ask myself the question: Would it be legal (in the UN mandate that it has now) to destroy the attackers airforce completely in a retaliation UN attack conducted by the one and only Air Force capable to do it there; the French?
I don't know but I sure know that if they give the "Oui" to attack that the people on the ground (rebbels) will not like it.

France did not ask for aid and if it needed some in a conflict that it is capable to handle with its current African UN partners (for once let the Africans work amongst them under the the millitary umbrella of a Western nation that is not American). If France needs millitary UN partners, the Belgians (after France, a nation with a lot of experience there), Germany, Spain, Austria will be the first to join the French and African UN troops in Ivory Coast.

No help will be given by the US, that is for sure alltough the French evacuated the US civilian population there (remember the US citizens in their jeeps waving French flags and being gratefull whilst evacuated under the french protection).


Bullshit, the French needed help in the form of USAF C-130 transports to get those troops there in the first place and we didn't ask why, we just did it. That's more than most European nations would do, I can assure you.

531: at Callinicum on the Euphrates River. He wasn't badly defeated, but he was forced to escape. Though he did kick arse.
I misread his statement, I thought he said wars, not battles.

Actually, didn't he force an impasse at Callinicum? If I'm thinking of the right battle (one of the Persian campaigns?), didn't he maul their heavy cavalry to the point where they couldn't continue their attack, but he also had to withdraw due to losses?

Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France
1769-1821


One of the most brilliant individuals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte was a masterful soldier, an unequalled grand tactician and a superb administrator. He was also utterly ruthless, a dictator and, later in his career, thought he could do no wrong.

Not a Frenchman by birth, Napoleon Bonaparte was born at Ajaccio on Corsica - only just sold to France by the Italian state of Genoa - on 15 August 1769 and learnt French at the school of Autun and later the military academy at Brienne. He never fully mastered French and his spelling left a lot to be desired.

The revolutionary fever that was spreading when Bonaparte was a teenager allowed a talented individual the opportunity to rise far beyond what could have been achieved only a few years previously.

His first real military opportunity came as a captain of artillery at the siege of Toulon, where he expertly seized crucial forts and was able to bombard the British naval and land forces, eventually forcing them to sail away.

Now a brigadier-general, Bonaparte served in the army campaigning in Italy but found himself arrested and jailed for being an associate of the younger brother of Maximilien Robespierre.

With no position for him after his release, Bonaparte thought about joining the Turkish army and even joining a naval expedition to Australia, but became involved with a member of the Directory, Paul Barras, who used the young man's zeal to put down a royalist mob in 1795 with the now legendary "whiff of grapeshot".

With his loyalty and ruthlessness proven, the next year Bonaparte took up command of the Army of Italy and set off on a campaign that was to take him to absolute power in France and Europe.

Initially treated with suspicion, and not a little contempt, by the older generals he superceded, Bonaparte won over his badly treated soldiers with promises of great things to come and a large helping of personal bravery. Like Caesar, he was not afraid to get into the thick of the fighting to inspire his men.

In a series of battles that included such as Montenotte, Mondovi, Arcola and Rivoli, Bonaparte swept the board of ageing Austrian generals and established himself as one of the leading soldiers of his time.

After masterminding the Peace of Campo Formio, Bonaparte returned to Paris where he took command of the Army of England, an imposing force neutered by England's wooden walls of its navy.

Desperate to be both at Britain and pushing his own reputation, Bonaparte planned an expedition to Egypt to threaten his foe's trading routes. He sailed from Toulon in 1798 and, after capturing Malta, made it to Egypt in early July.

The campaign began brilliantly when he smashed the power of the ruling Mamelukes at the Battle of the Pyramids, but was crippled when Nelson's hound-pack fleet finally caught up with the French navy at Aboukir (Battle of the Nile) and sank all but four of the 17-ship force.

Stranded and with suspect supply lines, Bonaparte moved into Syria and won the battle of Mt Tabor before being halted by fierce and stubborn resistance at Acre.

Stricken with disease and wary of a mass revolt in Cairo, the French made a horrendous march through the deserts of the Sinai, but arrived at Aboukir in good enough condition to crush another Turkish force.

Realising the potential success of his campaign was now limited, if not impossible, Bonaparte decided to abandon his army and get back to the centre of power - Paris - and make sure his position had not been undermined.

Popular with the people, Bonaparte found the loathed Directory very cool towards his surprise arrival and no doubt took pleasure in their discomfort when he, Abbe Sieyes and Roger Ducos seized power in the Coup de Brumaire, which saw them share power as equal consuls. Within months Bonaparte was First Consul and had eased his "equals" into early retirement.

The next stage in Bonaparte's career came in 1800, when he again moved into Italy with another brilliant manouevre that saw him lead the French army over the Alps and surprise the occupying Austrians.

It almost proved to be a blunder - as Bonaparte was in turn caught by surprise at the tenacity of General Melas who attacked him at Marengo. Holding on for grim life the situation was saved for Bonaparte by General Louis Desaix's arrival with reinforcements and what was a lost battle became a stunning victory for the First Consul.

Together with the victory at Hohenlinden, Marengo forced the Austrians to the table and the resulting Peace of Leoben in 1801 and Peace of Amiens (1802) brought to an end a decade of revolution, strife and war.

He also got France back in to the good books of Rome through the Concordat with the Pope, which eased the restrictions and penalties imposed on the church by the Revolution.

Bonaparte's popularity was now unprecedented and he was voted Consul for life. Setting about much-needed civil reforms he turned upside down the old system of running France and introduced the Civil Code.

But all was not safe for Bonaparte and there were several attempts on his life, including a bomb set off in Paris as his carriage went by.

Still, in 1804, the general felt confident and secure enough to declare himself Emperor and the next day created the Marshalate for his most trusted and talented soldiers.

Bonaparte waited until 2 December for his coronation where, with much pomp and ceremony, he crowned himself.

While affairs within France were on a high, Bonaparte committed a serious error when the determined Duc d'Enghien, a Royalist figurehead, was kidnapped from neutral Baden, tried without a lawyer defending him and then executed. The event turned Europe's monarchies forever against him and led to the formation of the Third Coalition to try to bring down his regime.

Bonaparte reacted by amassing a huge army - the first Grande Armee - on the coastline of Europe with the intention of invading Britain but, fortunately for those opposing him, he was never given the opportunity as Admiral Horatio Nelson smashed his naval ambitions at Trafalgar in 1805.

While his political radar may have been off with the D'Enghien affair, his military one was not and knowing his enemies were mobilising against him he prepared a pre-emptive strike.

Secretly redeploying the 200,000-man Grand Armee, Bonaparte had them march by various routes until they were in striking distance of Austria's General Mack, who was waiting at Ulm for the arrival of the Russian army under General Kutusov.

The French manouevre worked brilliantly and General Mack found himself trapped within the city of Ulm with little sign of Kutusov. He made two major attempts to extricate his 27,000 men - at Elchingen and Haslach - but in the end had little choice but to surrender.

With the way to Vienna clear, Bonaparte occupied the enemy capital and then set out after the Russians and the remaining Austrian forces.

He caught them at Austerlitz where, with tactical brilliance, he tricked them in to attacking him and proceeded to destroy them.

The victory led to the Peace of Pressburg and Austria was forced to give up huge areas of influence in Germany and Italy.

With Europe pacified, the French emperor once again turned his eyes towards Britain and developed a plan to wage economic war - the Continental System - on his closest enemy.

With the large number of states under either his control or influence, Bonaparte decided that by excluding Britain from trading with them he could hurt that nation's economy sufficiently to stop it bankrolling more wars on mainland Europe.

Reluctantly adopted by Europe, it didn't take long for the Continental System to begin another war. In order to stop Portugal trading with Britain he sent an army through his ally Spain to enforce the blockade.

Then, inexplicably, he used the presence of French troops in Spain to persuade the King Charles IV to step down and be replaced by Joseph Bonaparte.

The reaction of the Spanish people could have been predicted and an uprising broke out that was to spread across the entire nation and last for six years.

Bonaparte's miscalculation was to cost him more than 200,000 casualties and be a constant drain upon his resources. It was aptly dubbed "the Spanish Ulcer".

Worse was to come as a French army was forced to surrender to a Spanish force at Bailen, destroying the notion of French invincibility, and Britain landed a small army under Arthur Wellesley in Portugal.

It quickly defeated General Junot's Army of Portugal and forced Bonaparte to return to the field at the head of a hastily assembled force.

His campaign was highly successful, defeating the Spanish and putting down the major revolt and he managed to force the British, now under Sir John Moore, into a scrambling retreat to Corunna and evacuation by ship.

Bonaparte's success, however, failed to impress the Austrians and, by 1809, the leaders in Vienna felt confident enough to form the Fifth Coalition with Britain and move against France's Bavarian allies.

Caught by surprise the French, under Marshal Berthier, initially were in serious trouble against the capable Archduke Charles, but the arrival of the emperor bolstered confidence and began to set things to rights.

The French won the battles of Abensberg and Eckmuhl, almost lost Aspern-Essling after Bonaparte's advanced units became trapped against the flooded Danube River with the entire Austrian army bearing down on them, and then defeated Charles at Wagram.

Peace followed and was cemented when Bonaparte, now divorced from Josephine, married Marie-Louise of Austria.

Between 1810 and 1812 tensions between France and Russia kept increasing and, when Tsar Alexander refused to back down despite an army of 600,000 men on his border, Bonaparte ordered an invasion.

Despite being well planned the campaign was doomed by the sheer distances that had to be marched.

Bonaparte was hoping to force a decisive battle soon after entering Russia, but the defenders traded space for time by reteating. There were bloody, but indecisive, battles at Smolensk and Borodino and, when the French finally reached Moscow, they found that the Russians had preferred to set fire to it rather than let the French have it.

Still hoping for peace negotiations, Bonaparte delayed leaving the capital for too long and on his march back to France disaster hit the Grande Armee.

Appalling cold, lack of supplies and constant attacks by Russian forces whittled away the once-magnificent army so that when it finally stumbled out of Russia its survivors numbered fewer than 20,000.

Seeing the French almost on their knees the revenge-seeking Prussians broke their alliance with Paris and, together with Sweden, joined the Tsar's campaign to kick the French out of Germany.

The 1813 Campaign through Germany saw a weakened Bonaparte fight and win the battles of Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden, but the sheer weight of numbers caught up with him at Leipzig, where some 200,000 Frenchmen took on 400,000 enemy troops in a massive three-day battle.

Defeated, and his forces also facing an unbeaten and advancing British army in Spain, Bonaparte gathered strength for his last roll of the die - the battle for France.

The following campaign saw Bonaparte return to his brilliant best and he won battle after battle with weak and inexperienced forces pitted against seasoned and seemingly innumerable enemies.

Finally, however, the numbers told and he was forced to abdicate by his marshals on 6 April 1814. He gave a final farewell to his Old Guard at Fontainbleau on 20 April and chose 600 men to go into exile with him on Elba.

On the island Bonaparte plotted his return and taking advantage of lax security and in the knowledge there was a growing resentment of the restored Bourbons and Louis XVIII, he landed in France in early March of 1815.

Despite being branded an Enemy of Humanity by his enemies, the French people flocked to him and within months he had rebuilt his army for the expected arrival of the armies of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and Britain.

Rather than wait he launched a lightning campaign into Belgium in the hope of catching the British, under the Duke of Wellington, and the Prussians, under Field Marshal Blucher, off guard.

The plan worked, but a series of command errors by subordinates blew the opportunities offered and despite victory at Ligny and a tactical draw at Quatre Bras, he was defeated at Waterloo.

Exiled a second time, the man who ruled Europe spent his last six years on a small island in the South Atlantic called St Helena.

His death in 1821 brought relief to the royal houses of Europe and it was only in 1840 that his body was allowed to return to his beloved France.

so technically, france needed a roman to make them famous.

Bullshit,.
Perhaps in Texas but not in my backyard.

the French needed help in the form of USAF C-130 transports to get those troops there in the first place and we didn't ask why, we just did it. That's more than most European nations would do, I can assure you.

What are you talking about? C-130? Ever saw how many EU nations have those plains? Masses of them are in EU armies and used around the world for aid anywhere.(while the US's 130's are just few in action for the UN, the majority comes from EU nations together with their even bigger and newer fleet of more modern plains like the airbuses or the Russians with a plain that is even bigger then the US's Galaxy: the new Antonov).

You are really bad informed. The EU still pays most of the help in the world (3/4) and still pays its bills to the UN. I understand that you don't lik ethe facts, but that is just because you have a EU racisme in your mind. Like every CRWN, you have to look at the facts...


Do you denie the images and the fact that all Americans there where evacuated by our EU brothers the French? Jezus, if that is what they told you by FOX then it is even worse the I tought. :rolleyes:

so technically, france needed a roman to make them famous.

Yes, haha, Napolean wasn't technically French. And all those soldiers he led to victory repeatedly were all from other countries too.

Point one: The French did what they had to do-live to fight another day.
Point two: If Germany had been where canada is they wouldve been wrecked invading the US.
1.Lack of numbers
2.Armed population-Why does everyone underestimate the resistance that can be put up by an armed civilian populace.

I think France did what any relatively smart society would do, they put up as much resistance as they could and decided to put their civilian population first and surrender. If I ran a country and had a choice between giving up or having everyone killed, I like to think I would make the ethical decision and wave the white flag.
I am sure that Germany would be destroyed if they attempted to invade the US right now, but truthfully the world was caught with it's pants down. As far as warfare technology is concerned Germany was miles ahead of everyone else at this point in time. And the sheer numbers theory is ridiculous. Look at the Russia campaign, at the end of the war Germany pushed into a country that had a tremendous population, if Germany would have went straight for Russia at the beginning of the war they could have taken it like an adult playing Risk with a blind, deaf child. As far as an armed population goes, in the early days of world war II personal weaponry was not such a popular hobby in the states as it is today, people weren't armed and dangerous, they were just like France was at the time; unprepared, fortunately for the states they just had longer to get ready for it than most countries.

so technically, france needed a roman to make them famous.

Same words (that you post now: "so, technically,...") where allready posted in this thread,and, you don't need to quote that longue post :)

I think it was rather unfactual propaganda and stoped reading the CRWN propaganda after 2 lines :p

Same words (that you post now: "so, technically,...") where allready posted in this thread,and, you don't need to quote that longue post :)

I think it was rather unfactyual propaganda and stoped reading after 2 lines :p

So, after 2 lines you were able to determine it was unfactual propaganda?

"One of the most brilliant individuals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte was a masterful soldier, an unequalled grand tactician and a superb administrator. He was also utterly ruthless, a dictator and, later in his career, thought he could do no wrong."

Hmm, yes, pro-Napoleonic propaganda right there.

Guess that you have to pay us a bottle of Champagne. The French had about 200.000 troops near Monte Cassino and together with the Brits and the extreme brave Aussies, they fought much better and had better results the the US troops.
Just read Matthew Parkers "Monte Cassino 1944" and ya know it.

This is what you don't like to hear in your history revisionist brain. (hmmm, brain :rolleyes: )
May 18, 1944. Let that date stare you in the face for a little while. Thats post Leningrad, thats prior to D-Day, thats less than a year before Germany signed its Armistice. So your saying because the French managed to raise 200,000 men to attack Monte Cassino, an Italian outpost of largely symbolic nature, and this somehow qualifies as making them a crucial part of the war? Well heres the reality:

[i]The Allies under the overall command of General Sir Harold Alexander began the fourth and final offensive for Monte Cassino on 11 May.

The Gustav Line was finally breached on 14 May. While the 5th Army made a flanking attack to the south, the 8th Army of British, Polish, Canadian and Indian Troops made a frontal assault on the line at Cassino.

In addition, the French Expeditionary Force, part of the 5th Army, attacked from the west[i]

Now, if we assume that the FEF was say...2/3 of the 5th Army even, and that a French army is operating at overloaded army levels, thereby 4 divisions of 40,000 men, the maximum for the "Army" structure. Thereby you have only approximately 106,000 men. This is an absolute maximum. The French army was much more likely operating under a 3 Division set, whereby this maximum FEF would hav been 80,000 men. Furthermore, it is unusal for something to be described as "part of the 5th Army" if it comprises the majority of said force. Thereby if we say there were even 9/20ths of the total, you could only have a maximum of 72,000, at the 4 Division structure! Your numbers are absurd, and as the above shows, the French were not even part of the major attack, which was the frontal assault.

Now who is the revisionist here, and who actually has the facts? Your 200,000 is looking really shaky around here.

So, after 2 lines you were able to determine it was unfactual propaganda?

"One of the most brilliant individuals in history, Napoleon Bonaparte was a masterful soldier, an unequalled grand tactician and a superb administrator. He was also utterly ruthless, a dictator and, later in his career, thought he could do no wrong."

Hmm, yes, pro-Napoleonic propaganda right there.

We all know who you are and those two lines won't change the opinion that I have of your CRNW anti everything that is not US (specially the muslim world or the EU and specially the French).

You know that.Never saw a unbiased post by you about those French, so why would this one be :rolleyes:

We all know who you are and those two lines won't change the opinion that I have of your CRNW anti everything that is not US (specially the muslim world or the EU and specially the French).

You know that.Never saw a unbiased post by you about those French, so why would this one be :rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about?

So will the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" be able to beat off the Ivory Coast military?

JK!! JK!! (I like the French)

Perhaps in Texas but not in my backyard.


What are you talking about? C-130? Ever saw how many EU nations have those plains? Masses of them are in EU armies and used around the world for aid anywhere.(while the US's 130's are just few in action for the UN, the majority comes from EU nations together with their even bigger and newer fleet of more modern plains like the airbuses or the Russians with a plain that is even bigger then the US's Galaxy: the new Antonov).

You are really bad informed. The EU still pays most of the help in the world (3/4) and still pays its bills to the UN. I understand that you don't lik ethe facts, but that is just because you have a EU racisme in your mind. Like every CRWN, you have to look at the facts...


Do you denie the images and the fact that all Americans there where evacuated by our EU brothers the French? Jezus, if that is what they told you by FOX then it is even worse the I tought. :rolleyes:


I don't get Fox News, and I read that in an Associated Press article when this whole mess started. The EU nations combined might have enough C-130s to equal the USAF inventory, but France does not have near enough transports and no European nation has an excess of tactical transports like the US does.

EDIT: I went and added up the numbers. Surpisingly France has 14, count 'em, fourteen C-130s. The majority of its transport are extremely old C-160s that don't have the legs or the refuelling boom to make it to Africa. That leaves France's small inventory of CN-235s and C-130s, which combined can lift no more than 1800 troops and if they were all committed would leave France without the option of long-range deployments or extraction in other hotspots. Interestingly, Europe does not have the tactical transport aircraft needed to handle those 10,000 UN and French troops, much less the French troops.

May 18, 1944. Let that date stare you in the face for a little while. Thats post Leningrad, thats prior to D-Day, thats less than a year before Germany signed its Armistice. So your saying because the French managed to raise 200,000 men to attack Monte Cassino, an Italian outpost of largely symbolic nature, and this somehow qualifies as making them a crucial part of the war? Well heres the reality:.

An outpost, the Gustavline an outpost? :rolleyes:


[i]The Allies under the overall command of General Sir Harold Alexander began the fourth and final offensive for Monte Cassino on 11 May.:.

1. 4the battle was the final break through but not the most important battle.In your simlyness and acording your propaganda, you like to forget the 3 hardest battles. Just have the book before me and let me say this in your CRWN face: wrong on all fronts and facts in your anti european revisionism .

11 january: attacks from 8 RTM (11-12) to Costa San Piedro and hill 1025, together with the 2nd Marocan division (or are they American for ya :rolleyes: )
11-16 january: attack of 5RTM towards Monte de 'Arena
11-16 jan. attack of 7 RTA over Monna Casale and Monte Passero to Rio Il Gallo (reached 21-23)
11 jan. 3the Algerian Division atttacks in the same offensive and climbs over the also snowed Monte Raimo, Monte Ferro, Monte La Migghlia, reaching Valvori on 15 jan..
3 Ta (11-14 january) attacks over the mountains reaching Vallerotonda andlater Croce (also a city at the Rapido) on 15-16 january .

All part of divisions of the French expeditionary force.


The Gustav Line was finally breached on 14 May. While the 5th Army made a flanking attack to the south, the 8th Army of British, Polish, Canadian and Indian Troops made a frontal assault on the line at Cassino.

In addition, the French Expeditionary Force, part of the 5th Army, attacked from the west[i]:.

I won't type this great book here on NS just to show how wrong you are since it only fits (a verry small part, because even in the 2,3,4th battle they where even more involved) your anti European (this case the French are your target). But that is a small fact while the US troops where sitting and lay back and visiting the hookers at Napoli and making business of stolen US stock with the local people.
divisions of the French expeditionary force.


Now, if we assume

Wich is your problem, you "assume" instead of doing the slightest reading :rolleyes:


the French were not even part of the major attack, which was the frontal assault.


Better go back to a bookshop that sells books that you don't have in the red CRWN states and read this book by a US writer. They where.


Now who is the revisionist here,

You still are :rolleyes: and you know it. Afraid of the best book about Cassino? Hell there is a lot of good about the US troops in it to, but just because of your racisme and revisionism, I advise you to read it instead of copying things from internet that you know shit about.

You must one of the least informed and detailed person on NS for writing such nonsens about the 4th battle and ignoring for revisionist and propaganda reasons that are way racist, all other battles that prepared the breakthrough and costed 20 times the lives lost in the 4th battle.

Revisionism must be your second name, you must be one of those guys that say that the gaschambers are a Zionist invention, the way you speak and lie about everything, with the only purpose to hurt the non US states (specially the French) says enough. Typical CRWN: you like Jews when they join ya but, hell if they don't agree then you turn in to the right wing nazi you actually are.


The book is "Matthew Parker: The Story of the Hardest-fought Battle of World War Two"

Hell I even don't agree with the tittle, must be Stalingrad and summer 44 when the eastern front colapsed. But youngsters like you should read before saying half thruts.

I don't get Fox News, and I read that in an Associated Press article when this whole mess started. The EU nations combined might have enough C-130s to equal the USAF inventory, but France does not have near enough transports and no European nation has an excess of tactical transports like the US does.

EDIT: I went and added up the numbers. Surpisingly France has 14, count 'em, fourteen C-130s. The majority of its transport are extremely old C-160s that don't have the legs or the refuelling boom to make it to Africa. That leaves France's small inventory of CN-235s and C-130s, which combined can lift no more than 1800 troops and if they were all committed would leave France without the option of long-range deployments or extraction in other hotspots. Interestingly, Europe does not have the tactical transport aircraft needed to handle those 10,000 UN and French troops, much less the French troops.


Chirac as ordered more 300 troops into Ivory coast. That is well within the range of the 1800 troops they can airlift. Thank you for letting us now that the French need not the help of the US, less one more falacious argument against Europe.

Nice.

After all, the standard US complaint is that other countries don't do enough to help quell hot-spots around the world. And here is a combined French/UN mission trying to stop a civil war (and doing it pretty damned succesfully for the past year I might add), and you want to insult them for that too.



The old "no matter what you do we'll insult you for it" tact.

Real mature.

Most people like that (the person you're responding to with the above) don't really know much about history and world events. They hear a spun joke by some political mouthpiece like Dennis Miller or Al Franken and think it's 'reality', just like the propaganda-czars in the gov't want them to...
BTW, France didn't refuse to go to war with Iraq because of fear, it was because they have morals. IE: it's like calling the one kid in a group of 13 year olds who refuses to help steal a car a 'p*ssy'...

Chirac as ordered more 300 troops into Ivory coast. That is well within the range of the 1800 troops they can airlift. Thank you for letting us now that the French need not the help of the US, less one more falacious argument against Europe.

The Ivory Coast incident started more than a year go, the French needed help with the initial deployment of 3,000 men. Yes, they can handle 300 men, but not anything past the amount I noted and still be viable strategically.

And the EU is an economic alliance, I don't believe there's anything in the charter dictating that other European nations must help materially in an independant peacekeeping operation.

I don't get Fox News,.

Hell, you can, don't be excuse now for being biased. :D

The EU nations combined might have enough C-130s to equal the USAF inventory, but France does not have near enough transports and no European nation has an excess of tactical transports like the US does.,.
Ever heared about airbus? :rolleyes: Hell, even most US companies are looking for those instead of old technology Boeing that even with US state support (yeah just like Airbus is by EU governments, I don't like that unfair competition towards smaller Boeing, I agree) is not capable to do what Airbus does.


EDIT: I went and added up the numbers. Surpisingly France has 14, count 'em, fourteen C-130s. .

So what, even Belgium has 12 C-130s (the Dutch hire them sometimes but prefer also the Airbus millitary plaines because of the better quality). France has his own Dassault concurent and much more millitary Airbuses in the air then the old 1960ies based model of the C-130 that is, true, one of the greatest and most reliable plains in the world until now. But you can't say that the number of C-130s in use is relevant for a like France that decided way ago to use other plains. This would mean the same comparision of the French and Uk airforces by the number of US made plaines in use. Both countries have mostly their own made fighters in use instead of foreign made.
Besides some Airbuses, the US neither has a lot of foreign made plaines in service, so why would UK or France?

Smaller EU nations like Belgium have a lot of US plaines (specialists in C-130) like the F-16 but like Holland, Germany, Italy AMO, they have lots of millitary stuff, fighters, assault weapons (regarded by the US as the finest and bought by the US in huge quantities) made in Europe.

In short, the number of C-130s in use by France or other countries is completely irrelevant.

The Ivory Coast incident started more than a year go, the French needed help with the initial deployment of 3,000 men.,.

Hmm, it where those damn French that evacuated our citizens to our ships, forgot that?

I think that they can handle 1000's of troops without our plaines, regarding their airforce.


Yes, they can handle 300 men, but not anything past the amount I noted and still be viable strategically.


Now you're making (again) a fool of yourself, like France has not more then one plain that could transport 100's of troops. You really are that stupid :rolleyes: They have 100's, weather you like it or not, ever saw France? Saw Orly or Charles de Gaulle or a millitary airbase? You're speaking about a Midwest US millitary airfield instead of the 3th nuclear power (after us, Russia but before China and the UK).

What are you smoking?

Can I interrupt this argument about French military airift capacity to point out that the Airbus A400 has not yet entered service, in any nation. While the project is well along and they should be entering service next year, no nation has any yet. Unless for some reason the French government decided to convert some 330s from transport purposes while awaiting the delivery of the 400s there should be no Airbus transport capability in the French military currently, although this will soon change.

Can I interrupt this argument about French military airift capacity to point out that the Airbus A400 has not yet entered service, in any nation. While the project is well along and they should be entering service next year, no nation has any yet. Unless for some reason the French government decided to convert some 330s from transport purposes while awaiting the delivery of the 400s there should be no Airbus transport capability in the French military currently, although this will soon change.

I think that you and LWNSer are both right.
You because of the 400 series, he because of all the Airbuses (old and new) of other series used in the millitary.

Hell, even Boeings from public companies where chartered by the US Army to send troops to Iraq, so why are we attacking them for a scenario in wich they still use their millitary plaines and have the capacity to rellie on it before using public Airbuses/Boeings aso.

Their Army fleet has a lot of passenger plaines, not used and not needed now, so Scandinavian States bullshit is still wrong.

France and Frenchmen have been doing just as much instigating and badmouthing. So I take insult to your 1 sided assualt.

I apologize if you´re insulted by my statement, but I assume you´re not one of those "rabid right-wing France-bashers" but a reasonable person, so in the end, my "attack" wasn´t directed at you. I´ll apologize anyway for the misunderstanding.


Point two: If Germany had been where canada is they wouldve been wrecked invading the US.
1.Lack of numbers
2.Armed population-Why does everyone underestimate the resistance that can be put up by an armed civilian populace.

Can´t agree. A armed population wouldn´t stand a chance against a highly trained, well motivated and especially ruthless army. As soon as the Nor-East US/ Great Lake areas would have been overrun, major indutrial sites layed to waste or taken over, any attempt of armed resistance - militarily or otherwise - would have been doomed.

Can I interrupt this argument about French military airift capacity to point out that the Airbus A400 has not yet entered service, in any nation. While the project is well along and they should be entering service next year, no nation has any yet. Unless for some reason the French government decided to convert some 330s from transport purposes while awaiting the delivery of the 400s there should be no Airbus transport capability in the French military currently, although this will soon change.

Thank you.

To the two Francophiles: I'm well aware of the A400 project and I'm also aware of the fact that it was at one point being considered for the USAF's next generation tactical transport aircraft, but Airbus' bid has been rejected while the US competitors' proposals are continuing to be evaluated. The French Air Force won't recieve its first three A400s until next year and in fact no European power has any Airbus transports, at least according to GlobalSecurity.org (where I viewed the FAF transport inventory.)

in fact no European power has any Airbus transports, at least according to GlobalSecurity.org (where I viewed the FAF transport inventory.)

Completly wrong like allways, what drug are they using to say such nonsense? Ever heared about other Airbuses then the 400 series? :rolleyes:
Well Airbus 400 is not the only model in use by European and other Airforces, Airbus is a company that makes plaines since the 7ties, and lots of models are used in a lot of airforces.

You see, you lose again. Remember that all your bias started when you said that France was not able to transport more then 300 persons (millitary) a time, what a joke :rolleyes: Even Belgium had a operation in the 60ties with the Katanga crisis where that tinny nation sended more then 3000's of para troops in one night by its own means, without US support ( plaines where US bought "fying boxcar" of the BAF, in service since the 50ties), that was 40 years ago.

Go to see what small EU states can transport millitary in troop amount (Austria, Belgium, Netherlands aso.) and you'll have the answer for a giant like France or Germany or the (smaller) UK airforce.

Come on be serious, "not capable of transporting more then 300 troops?"

Or do we misunderstand and you mean that they have no bigger plaines to transport more then 300 a time? Must be that because if not, you really lack information of post 1950 Europe and the world.

A 9th French soldier died from his injuries. The KIA were elements from the RICM (Régiment d'infanterie - chars de marine) equiped with AMX-10RC, so perhaps light tank crews. They apparently left France last month and had organized a collect to give school furnitures etc. to Ivory Coast.

In Bosnia we also had lost 71 KIA in "peacekeeping" operations.

More European civilians attacked and a total of 4 schools burning/destroyed now. Many shops and companies belonging to French people have been robbed and destroyed.

Until yet we had no air defence because the mandate from UN limited the actions. This will probably change soon.
The Ivorian Coast Government spokeman said the attack was a mistake. It sounds weird as the compound was clearly identified but perhaps not from the air, nevertheless the aircrafts flew 5 times over the area before attacking and a 250kg bomb hit directly a French barrack.
The Su-25 are piloted by Ukrainians and/or Bielorussian mercenaries and the Mil-Mi 24 Hinds are flown by South African and Angolans crews.

A French Air Force C-160 tactical transport aircraft has been damaged on the ground at Abidjan international airport. Many skirmishes all around and especially in the capital, the situation is very confuse but small arms and artillery can be heard.

According to some sources the French forces would have destroyed the 2 Su-25s and 5 helicopters by now. That would be all the operational FANCI air force except one helicopter according to French sources.

Nebertheless the French troops remain cold blooded and don't forget the initial aim of their mission which is to re-establish peace and safety as soon as possible.


The Librarie de France bookstore in Abidjan's chic Cocody quarter burns 06 November 2004. Young "patriotic" partisans of President Laurent Gbagbo looted French property in Abidjan


http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/51691823.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=CB711602F2C0BA52543BFF878CB0DDF6A9C30E9B9B114CE8

French Troops Battle Ivory Coast Forces

By PARFAIT KOUASSI
Associated Press Writer


ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (AP) -- French troops clashed with soldiers and angry mobs Saturday after Ivory Coast warplanes killed at least nine French peacekeepers and an American civilian in an airstrike - mayhem that threatened to draw foreign troops deeper into the West African country's escalating civil war.

Mob violence broke out in Ivory Coast's largest city after France retaliated for the airstrike by destroying two government warplanes at an airport outside the capital.

Thousands of pro-government youths, some armed with machetes, axes or chunks of wood, took to the streets of the country's commercial capital, Abidjan. Crowds went door to door looking for French citizens and set fire to two French schools, sending a pall of smoke over the city.

"Everybody get your Frenchman!" young men in the mob shouted to each others. About 14,000 French nationals live in Ivory Coast - some 8,000 of whom have dual citizenship.

Later, massive explosions and heavy gunfire rocked the nation's capital, Yamoussoukro. It was not immediately known what caused the apparent fighting in the city, where both Ivorian and French forces are based.

The U.N. Security Council demanded an immediate halt to all military action in the Ivory Coast and confirmed Saturday that U.N. peacekeepers and French forces were authorized to use "all necessary means" to carry out their mandate.

France quickly sent three Mirage fighter jets to West Africa and ordered more troops to Ivory Coast in response to the violence.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier demanded action from Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, saying he must "clearly assume his responsibilities and the role that is his to return the country to calm - especially in Abidjan.

"We must immediately return to the path of peace," Barnier said.

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said Gbagbo would be "held personally responsible by the international community for (maintaining) the public order in Abidjan."

She said French President Jacques Chirac phoned Gbagbo earlier this week to warn him against heightening the conflict.

"Visibly, he (Gbagbo) didn't take that into account," she said.

A French defense ministry spokesman said on condition of anonymity that the United States had shown "great understanding about France's concerns in Ivory Coast." But he did not know whether U.S. military assistance had been sought.

The U.N. force includes thousands of West African troops, with the rest coming from an array of contributing nations, none American.

Hard-liners in Ivory Coast's military broke a more than year-old cease-fire, launching surprise airstrikes Thursday against rebel positions and vowing to retake the northern part of the country held by rebels since the civil war began in 2002.

Government officials said Saturday's airstrike that hit a French peacekeeper position was an accident - but the violence highlighted the nationalist fervor in the pro-government south.

Many in the south resent the French troops, suspecting them of siding with rebels, even though the peacekeepers have protected government troops in the past. France has about 4,000 troops in Ivory Coast, and a separate U.N. peacekeeping force numbers around 6,000.

Saturday's violence began when government warplanes struck French positions at Brobo, near the northern rebel-held town of Bouake, in the afternoon, U.N. military spokesman Philippe Moreux said.

Eight French soldiers were killed and 23 others wounded, French Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said in Paris. An American citizen also was killed in the raid, the French presidency said without elaborating.

A ninth French soldier died of his wounds, France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said before the emergency Security Council meeting. Council diplomats said the American who was killed was believed to have worked for a non-governmental organization and to have been at the French base.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Ergibe Boyd in Abidjan said diplomats have not confirmed the death. She said the American likely was a missionary since there is no U.S. military or diplomatic presence in the area.

In response to the strike, French infantry destroyed Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets on the ground at an airport in Yamoussoukro, 75 miles to the south, French military spokesman Col. Henry Aussavy said. The jets were believed to be the ones that carried out the strike.

"Our forces responded in a situation of legitimate defense," Bureau said. "Now the priority is the immediate end of combat."

France sent three Mirage fighter jets to nearby Gabon, and Chirac said he ordered the deployment of two more military companies to Ivory Coast.

The Security Council authorized U.N. and French troops patrolling a zone dividing the rebel-held north from the government-controlled south "to prevent any hostile action" and condemned any attempt to send forces through the zone.

The council said it "intends to examine rapidly further actions, including individual measures, to be taken."

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth, the current council president, said France will draft a resolution following up on the statement.

In Abidjan, French troops fired in the air and shot tear gas to hold back massive mobs trying to overrun a French military base. French and Ivory Coast troops traded gunfire on the tarmac of the international airport, as Ivory Coast troops tried to destroy French aircraft there in retaliation.

A French soldier was slightly injured and an airplane was lightly damaged before the fighting ended, French spokesman Jacques Combarieu said.

"French go home!" loyalist mobs screamed. Thousands went house to house seeking out French civilians, Aussavy said.

At least three French families called French authorities to say loyalist militias had stormed their homes, a Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity. There was no immediate word on any civilian casualties.

After nightfall, state TV ran a nonstop crawl across screens, asking for restraint: "We are asking all patriots and Ivorians to not attack, and to not attack the property, of French people or the international community."

Presidential spokesman Desire Tagro said on state TV: "The president asks all Ivorians to remain calm ... French and foreigners settled in Ivory Coast are not responsible for the Ivorian crisis. We mustn't bring the war here."

A senior member of Ivory Coast's government - Sebastien Dano Djeje, Cabinet member for National Reconciliation - said the bombing of the French position in the north "was a mistake. We didn't aim to hit them."
But then he questioned whether the government air force was really behind the strike.
"But what proves it was Ivorian planes? We have to do an investigation," he told The Associated Press.

Ivory Coast, the world's top cocoa producer, was the pride of France's former colonial empire for prosperous decades after independence in 1960. A downturn in commodities prices and political change in the 1990s encouraged instability, and the country suffered its first-ever military coup in 1999.

Turmoil and regional, ethnic and political hatreds have reigned since. Civil war erupted in September 2002. A power-sharing deal brokered by the French ended major fighting in 2003, but otherwise failed to take hold.




A senior member of Ivory Coast's government - Sebastien Dano Djeje, Cabinet member for National Reconciliation - said the bombing of the French position in the north "was a mistake. We didn't aim to hit them."
But then he questioned whether the government air force was really behind the strike.
"But what proves it was Ivorian planes? We have to do an investigation," he told The Associated Press.


And he is serious ... perhaps should we fire an AS-30L laser guided missile in Gbagbo's villa ... well what would be the evidence that it was a French missile ? But that would bring us down to the levell of the US, isn't it. :rolleyes:

We could say it was only just an "unfortunate accident".

I wonder though: Are there Foreign Legion troops among those 4,000 French troops currently stationed in Ivory Cost? I also saw that President Chirac is sending two additional military companies to Ivor Coast? Can you share any details with us about this?

It seems France is slowly getting its own small version of Iraq.

We could say it was only just an "unfortunate accident".

I wonder though: Are there Foreign Legion troops among those 4,000 French troops currently stationed in Ivory Cost? I also saw that President Chirac is sending two additional military companies to Ivor Coast? Can you share any details with us about this?

It seems France is slowly getting its own small version of Iraq.

There are several elements from the FFL and several SF but most of the troops are regular infantry troops, marine infantry and marine/airborne infantry troops.
The 9 French KIAs were from the Régiment d'Infanterie de Chars de Marine (RICM), a marines unit with AMX-10RC light tanks. The US KIA is from a humanitarian organisation.
For the remaining just read the news I quoted above : France is sending about 300 more men to help protect the civilians and we also dispatched some aircrafts to Gabon for closer air support if needed. Currently we have destroyed 2 Sukhoi 25s and probably 5 helicopter (perhaps 3 Hinds and 2 Mi-.

Ivorian Hinds and Su-25s :

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/3129335.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E699B408319483F3E5C84033300022EA

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/3129327.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E699B408319483F3982D915328467398

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/3129358.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E699B408319483F3FCD17B72E8997286

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6735123
Well, it seems like that even if there isn't war, there will be lots of anti-French violence. I failed to take that into account, forgeting that Yamoussoukro probably has no control over angry mobs and pop-up militias. The French better get the hell outta there, before it gets far worse.

Hmmm the French Vs. the UN, WHO WILL WIN?????

I'm guessing the UN?

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- 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." Sainted.

- 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. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- 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 Frogophiles 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 the opponent was also French.

- 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 first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly 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 find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French 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 Rules 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.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."



With only an hour and a half of research, Jonathan Duczkowski provided the following losses:

Norse invasions, 841-911.
After having their way with the French for 70 years, the Norse are bribed by a French King named Charles the Simple (really!) who gave them Normandy in return for peace. Normans proceed to become just about the only positive military bonus in France's [favour] for next 500 years.

Mexico, 1863-1864.
France attempts to take advantage of Mexico's weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier ("Halls of Montezuma"). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.

Panama jungles 1881-1890.
No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.

Napoleonic Wars.
Should be noted that the Grand Armee was largely (~%50) composed of non-Frenchmen after 1804 or so. Mainly disgruntled minorities and anti-monarchists. Not surprisingly, these performed better than the French on many occasions.

Haiti, 1791-1804.
French defeated by rebellion after sacrificing 4,000 Poles to yellow fever. Shows another rule of French warfare; when in doubt, send an ally.

India, 1673-1813.
British were far more charming then French, ended up victors. Therefore the British are well known for their tea, and the French for their whine (er, wine...). Ensures 200 years of bad teeth in England.

Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France's solution: pay them to leave us alone. America's solution: kick their asses ("the Shores of Tripoli"). [America's] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.

1798-1801, Quasi-War with U.S.
French privateers (semi-legal pirates) attack U.S. shipping. U.S. fights France at sea for 3 years; French eventually cave; sets precedent for next 200 years of Franco-American relations.

Moors in Spain, late 700s-early 800s.
Even with Charlemagne leading them against an enemy living in a hostile land, French are unable to make much progress. Hide behind Pyrennes until the modern day.

French-on-French losses (probably should be counted as victories too, just to be fair):

1208: Albigenses Crusade, French massacared by French.
When asked how to differentiate a heretic from the faithful, response was "Kill them all. God will know His own." Lesson: French are badasses when fighting unarmed men, women and children.

St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, August 24, 1572.
Once again, French-on-French slaughter.

Third Crusade.
Philip Augustus of France throws hissy-fit, leaves Crusade for Richard the Lion Heart to finish.

Seventh Crusade.
St. Louis of France leads Crusade to Egypt. Resoundingly crushed.

[Eighth] Crusade.
St. Louis back in action, this time in Tunis. See Seventh Crusade.

Also should be noted that France attempted to hide behind the Maginot line, sticking their head in the sand and pretending that the Germans would enter France that way. By doing so, the Germans would have been breaking with their traditional route of invading France, entering through Belgium (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World War I, etc.). French ignored this though, and put all their effort into these defenses.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Nobody said anything about being on the winning side. They asked if the French had won any wars. They didn't. The Allies won the war, the French had their lunches handed to them on three consecutive occasions.

I answered the question that was being asked.


Hate to point this out but if you going to use that answer then technically what war has the us won?

Hate to point this out but if you going to use that answer then technically what war has the us won?

Revolutionary War, War of 1812 (though it was actually a draw), Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War....

Revolutionary War, War of 1812 (though it was actually a draw), Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War....

Sorry should clarify. This time span is after WW1.

Sorry should clarify. This time span is after WW1.

Panama and I believe a couple of Caribean Islands that I cant think of at the moment.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6735123
Well, it seems like that even if there isn't war, there will be lots of anti-French violence. I failed to take that into account, forgeting that Yamoussoukro probably has no control over angry mobs and pop-up militias. The French better get the hell outta there, before it gets far worse.

Better watch and read (if you're able), the former posts :rolleyes: (tried?)
Yeah, I know, it is easy when you are not informed like you.

Panama and I believe a couple of Caribean Islands that I cant think of at the moment.

Come on lets gets some wars. Calling those wars is like calling an elemntrey vs college student a fight.

Panama and I believe a couple of Caribean Islands that I cant think of at the moment.

And the carribean island you might be thinking of is grenada. We could have sent the boyscouts and won that.

Come on lets gets some wars. Calling those wars is like calling an elemntrey vs college student a fight.

Define the definition of War!

Better watch and read (if you're able), the former posts :rolleyes: (tried?)
Yeah, I know, it is easy when you are not informed like you.
What do you find wrong about this post?
Edit:
I see now that you think this is an anti-France post. It wasn't meant to be. What I meant was that the situation in Cote d'Ivoire is critical and fragile. If the French military acts against their military further, the Yamoussoukro government may fall. This will mean French occupation, or else a public relations nightmare. I feel that it is best for all parties if France and the UN withdraw now, and we forget the Cote d'Ivoire even exists until the situation calms down.

You know, if things get really bad, the Foreign Legion is going to get the short end of the stick.

I think that there was a really good debate on page 7, 8&9 about Ivory Coast. Most of us should read it before falling in the US versus France (EU aso) bashing. And vice versa!

Define the definition of War!

Preferably conflicts that last longer then a week, one where the enemy at least has a chance. I mean I sure a couple hundred rebels on a mostly open island are a vicious threat and all but lets be real.

I think that there was a really good debate on page 7, 8&9 about Ivory Coast. Most of us should read it before falling in the US versus France (EU aso) bashing. And vice versa!

You mean debate serious issues. Never I want my flame wars. ;)

Well said. well said.

Preferably conflicts that last longer then a week, one where the enemy at least has a chance. I mean I sure a couple hundred rebels on a mostly open island are a vicious threat and all but lets be real.

US hasn't fought that type of war since 1898! Most of our wars have been with Allied forces.

Vietnam????

Sorry Sdaeriji, but you must remember, Napoleon was defeated. Can't be really that great when you are a two time loser. Sure he may have been brilliant, but he lost. :)

Right because America has never lost a war hmmmmmmmmmmm?

{Sneezes} Vietnam {/sneezes}
{Coughs} 1812 {/Coughs}

:gundge:

Vietnam????
The Australians also fought in Vietnam, but I don't know for how long. In any case, they had a very large presence there.

Yea. We can pretty much make the addition of the War on Terrorism to that list as well.

Right because America have never lost a war hmmmmmmmmmmm?

{Sneezes} Vietnam {/sneezes}

We won every battle in Vietnam. Lost it on the home front

{Coughs} 1812 {/1812}

:gundge:

DRAW!!

We won every battle in Vietnam. Lost it on the home front

DRAW!!

What the hell are you on about, America got its arse handed to it by the Viet Cong. That war was LOST!!!!

I think that there was a really good debate on page 7, 8&9 about Ivory Coast. Most of us should read it before falling in the US versus France (EU aso) bashing. And vice versa!

Indeed, Oxtailsoup seems to be a fact freak, knowing all that.

But I thank him, most of us are not that informed about the situation.
*Hands over a bottle of Italian Barola and a Rubbico Wine from FFC. towards the Soup*

What the hell are you on about, America got its arse handed to it by the Viet Cong. That war was LOST!!!!

Wrong oh dude. Look at the battles that were fought! Every single one of them were won by the US of A!

Wrong oh dude. Look at the battles that were fought! Every single one of them were won by the US of A!

Humn, you don't get it don't ya?

You don't need to be smart but reading the topic might help :)

Wrong oh dude. Look at the battles that were fought! Every single one of them were won by the US of A!

It's very hard to claim that you won a battle against a group of jungle fighters when you couldn't even see them and as such needed to defoliate the bush with agent orange just to know where to shoot. I'm guessing that you were taught history in an American school where America has never funded a terrorist nation, aided a terrorist group or lost a war.

It's very hard to claim that you won a battle against a group of jungle fighters when you couldn't even see them and as such needed to defoliate the bush with agent orange just to know where to shoot. I'm guessing that you were taught history in an American school where America has never funded a terrorist nation, aided a terrorist group or lost a war.

Actually we did win the battles. How do I know this? I've studied Vietnam. We did win every battle but because of our politicians, wound up losing it. You can win every battle and still lose the war if you don't have the support of the folks back home or from the politicians. Ironically, it was a democrat that got us involved and a republican that got us out.

Humn, you don't get it don't ya?

You don't need to be smart but reading the topic might help :)

This topic is about France being at war. I do hope that the French do something since war was basically declared on them with the bombing of their soldiers.

This topic is about France being at war. I do hope that the French do something since war was basically declared on them with the bombing of their soldiers.

Like I said, you are not informed and did not read the information on page 7,8,9 about what the French reaction was :)

Try again for 1$ ;)

Like I said, you are not informed and did not read the information on page 7,8,9 about what the French reaction was :)

Try again for 1$ ;)

I'll be honest! I was shocked that this actually happened. I'm waiting to see what the UN does because the UN was in an emergency session. However, I have not heard a thing about it. Until I know more, I really shouldn't comment on this. Though judging by the French History of warfare, I fear for the French Soldiers.

Maybe this will teach France that they shouldn't have backstabbed us when they realize we won't help them.

Otherwise, I will say congratulations to the French pilots who did the shoot downs. Can anyone please try and find out what type of planes were shot down. I know it was 2 fighters and a chopper, but specific type of fighter would be helpful. Does France have the de Gaulle there or were these ground based fighters on their side? Either way I'd put money on the French planes being F-1Cs.

A French Poem

Eleven thousand soldiers
lay beneath the dirt and stone,
all buried on a distant land
so far away from home.

For just a strip of dismal beach
they paid a hero's price,
to save a foreign nation
they all made the sacrifice.

And now the shores of Normandy
are lined with blocks of white:
Americans who didn't turn
from someone else's plight.

Eleven thousand reasons
for the French to take our side,
but in the moment of our need,
they chose to run and hide.

Chirac said every war means loss,
perhaps for France that's true,
for they've lost every battle
since the days of Waterloo

Without a soldier worth a damn
to be found within the region,
the French became the only land
to need a Foreign Legion.

You French all say we're arrogant.
Well hell, we've earned the right--
We saved your sorry nation
when you lacked the guts to fight.

But now you've made a big mistake,
and one that you'll regret;
you took sides with our enemies,
and that we won't forget.

It wasn't just our citizens
you spit on when you turned,
but every one of yours
who fell the day the towers burned.

You spit upon our soldiers,
on our pilots and Marines,
and now you'll get a little sense
of just what payback means.

So keep your Paris fashions
and your wine and your champagne,
and find some other market
that will buy your aeroplanes.

And try to find somebody else
to wear your French cologne,
for you're about to find out
what it means to stand alone.

You see, you need us far more
than we ever needed you.
America has better friends
who know how to be true.

I'd rather stand with warriors
who have the will and might,
than huddle in the dark
with those whose only flag is white.

I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
the Israelis and the rest,
for when it comes to valor
we have seen that they're the best.

We'll count on one another
as we face a moment dire,
while you sit on the sideline
with a sign, "friendship for hire."

We'll win this war without you
and we'll total up the cost,
and take it from your foreign aid,
and then you'll feel the loss.

And when your nation starts to fall,
well Frenchie, you can spare us,
just call the Germans for a hand,
they know the way to Paris.


Don Fichthorn, Major USMC (Retired)

Very Nice Chutes and Ladders!

I like it.

Maybe this will teach France that they shouldn't have backstabbed us when they realize we won't help them..

Euh.., they helped us when they evacuated and protected 1000's of our citizens there when nobody here wanted to send troops. Remember the Americans waving French and UN flags while being evacuated.


Otherwise, I will say congratulations to the French pilots who did the shoot downs. Can anyone please try and find out what type of planes were shot down. I know it was 2 fighters and a chopper, but specific type of fighter would be helpful..

I saw a lot of information on Oxtailsoups links (page 7, 8,9 or so). I think it where or French SAMS or a destruction on the ground from French plaines. Wich? I dunno.


Does France have the de Gaulle there or were these ground based fighters on their side? .

Last week he was testing in the Atlantic in virtual exercices towards the cooperation with their next super nuclear attack carrier (a sistership) of them. So it is not there.


Hmm, the UK really needs to invest when the next future will bring us 2 US like, nuclear French carriers. How can the Navy let those French be bigger?
Is the UK that poor? Is France spending more on defence? Their latest carrier and her next sistership(s) in 2006 are allready bigger then anything Brittania has, how can a sea going nation like Brittain let this happen? :rolleyes:

hehe...french...army...hehe

Hey that reminds me, do a Google search for French Military Victories and click I'm feeling lucky.

Seriously though, I hope they all come to peace soon.

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I was wondering whether or not France has deployed the naval version of the Rafale to their carrier yet.

What about Ney and similar leaders who were eclipsed by Napoleon?


There not like you. They ain't light weights, and can hold their drink.
Earlier examples: Charlemagne, anyone?

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I was wondering whether or not France has deployed the naval version of the Rafale to their carrier yet.

Yes, but verry recently, sea Janes Defence from late August, there was a article about them. It is in the same number that speaks about the latest Tiger Moth between the old Nato Partners (great Tiger photo's on the F-16's , Eurofighter, Raffales and even a Polish Mig 24 :cool: )

Hmm, the UK really needs to invest when the next future will bring us 2 US like, nuclear French carriers. How can the Navy let those French be bigger?
Is the UK that poor? Is France spending more on defence? Their latest carrier and her next sistership(s) in 2006 are allready bigger then anything Brittania has, how can a sea going nation like Brittain let this happen? :rolleyes:

I'm a Naval buff (current applicant for NROTC)

I know that the Brits are developing a new larger carrier that will replace the pathetic Invincible class piece of garbage ships. They plan on basing F-35 JSFs off of them. It is sad to see the Brit Navy today. They will be down to 6 or 8 subs in a few years and are reliant on old Type 42 destroyers for the surface fleet.

Why do you guys always have to be mean to France? Wow, they lost World War 2, big deal. The U.S. lost Vietnam and Korea. Every country loses wars Germany lost two world wars. Poland hasn't won a war in a really long time. So don't judge countries on their military strength or military victories.
The US lost Korea? That's news to me.

Who let this guy into the thread? Do you even know where France is? They are clearly not all Nazi collaborators - no more so than you, homeboy.
Half the French went over to the Nazis during WWII. Ever heard of Vichy France?

The US lost Korea? That's news to me.

News to me too! I thought there was an armistace in place at the moment and that wouldn't have happened if we didn't drive them out of Seoul, South Korea and the rest of South Korea.

Half the French went over to the Nazis during WWII. Ever heard of Vichy France?

This is actually accurate in regards to Vichy France. But to be fair to the French, their resistance did do alot to help the Ally Cause.

And the French were part of the Allies. If the Allies won, then the French won. How do you think they got their seat on the UN Security Council? How they fared in the war does not determine whether or not they won.
Ever heard of the "liberation of Paris"? You don't liberate a country that has just won a war.

Ever heard of the "liberation of Paris"? You don't liberate a country that has just won a war.

Now this is actually accurate. In reality, the French did lose in WWII and were liberated! However, the French then went back after the Germans so a case can be made that they helped us win WWII.

Most people like that (the person you're responding to with the above) don't really know much about history and world events. They hear a spun joke by some political mouthpiece like Dennis Miller or Al Franken and think it's 'reality', just like the propaganda-czars in the gov't want them to...
BTW, France didn't refuse to go to war with Iraq because of fear, it was because they have morals. IE: it's like calling the one kid in a group of 13 year olds who refuses to help steal a car a 'p*ssy'...
I doubt morals had much to do with it. Oil for food, billions of dollars in French industry ties to Iraq, I suspect, had much more to do with it.

It doesn't appear too successful right now. If I were the French government, I'd withdraw now. The Cote d'Ivoire issue will one day be important, but that may take decades to do.
God, people with this attitude really get to me. France has kept peace in this region for a long time now.

One attack on their forces does not mean they are unsuccessful, their presence is the only thing that would stop a bloody civil war that would kill tens of thousands.

How dare you in your smug ignorance presume that France should remove a buffer-zone simply because, I assume, you are filled with some pseudo-partiotic hatred.

God, people with this attitude really get to me. France has kept peace in this region for a long time now.

One attack on their forces does not mean they are unsuccessful, their presence is the only thing that would stop a bloody civil war that would kill tens of thousands.

How dare you in your smug ignorance presume that France should remove a buffer-zone simply because, I assume, you are filled with some pseudo-partiotic hatred.

I will give you the first Paragraph and most of the second. What I find funny is that they got bombed followed by artillery barrage somewhere. Then action elsewhere. So much for peace. Hopefully they can do something. The UN was in an emergency session of the UN Security Council. Does anyone have info on what they decided, if anything?

I'm a Naval buff (current applicant for NROTC)

I know that the Brits are developing a new larger carrier that will replace the pathetic Invincible class piece of garbage ships. They plan on basing F-35 JSFs off of them. It is sad to see the Brit Navy today. They will be down to 6 or 8 subs in a few years and are reliant on old Type 42 destroyers for the surface fleet.

Its a sad era for the British when the Royal Australian Navy operates more advanced (homebuilt) ships than the RN. Has London simply forgotten that is HAS a navy?

This is actually accurate in regards to Vichy France. But to be fair to the French, their resistance did do alot to help the Ally Cause.

A Large part of the US was under the confederacy for four years. This doesn't mean everyone in the confederacy was for slavery, many in fact werent. Just because your state, or country becomes something, the people aren't nessecairaly for it, or for all of its things.

The French provided much help in Italy. They had more than 11 divisions by the end of the war. Many were in italy, before d-day, where many were diverted to help in france. The french took some of the hardest fighting when covering the left flank of italy, going through nearly trackless mountains and attacking strongly-fortified areas.

The French didn't lose ww2. They lost Fall gelb, the battle of france. When their allies liberated them, with the help of france, they pushed germany out of the nation. The war started in '39. It ended in '45. In '45, france was a victor. It won, whatever you want to say about the Battle of France.

"Its a sad era for the British when the Royal Australian Navy operates more advanced (homebuilt) ships than the RN. Has London simply forgotten that is HAS a navy?"

LOL, Are you serious?

Sadly...yes i am serious. But full marks to the French for finally getting a leg up on the British navy.
Its always nice to see the english lose (i know that sounds cruel but its true right?) :D

Isn't it Cote d'Ivoire now?

hehe...french...army...hehe

Why do Americans keep singling out the French as cowards? They stood up to Hitler with Britain when he invaded Poland in 1939. The US did not enter the war until 1942.

As far as Iraq is concerned, there is not a single nation in the World apart from the US where the majority of the population were in favour of invading Iraq. So I don't see why the French should be the brunt of these attacks, if anything the US should be claiming the whole world are cowards.

Wasn't it the French army that actually liberated America from British rule anyway? They probably leave that out of your history books over there though.

Not at all. I believe they fought valiantly. It was later in WW2 when they started mass-producing white flags.

They did a good job of holding the Germans back in WW1, with help from the British. We just came in later to give an extra hand.

If you came any later the war would have been over. But, oh well, you're contribution can not be forgotten. And what's with the whole 'The French were a bunch of cowara
ds in WWII' thing? I'd like to see the US face invasion from the German Army. They'd hold off, but chances are they'd get taken over.

:rolleyes:
And this is proof of cowardice? There were French soldiers on the beaches of normandy too.

Really? Well, since they would have been Free French, I'm assuming they landed with the Brits at Gold and the other one.. what was it called? Or did they land with our troops at Juno?

Why do you guys always have to be mean to France? Wow, they lost World War 2, big deal. The U.S. lost Vietnam and Korea. Every country loses wars Germany lost two world wars. Poland hasn't won a war in a really long time. So don't judge countries on their military strength or military victories.

The US/UN didn't really lose in Korea. They lost the invasion of North Korea. And I agree with that last thing you said.

Because the French, despite having been saved in WWI by the Brits, and WWII by the Yanks, stomp around acting like people should listen to them. Plus they are all Nazi collaborators at heart.

The ALLIES saved them in WWI and WWII. That was blatant disrespect for all the countries who lost men in both wars. You really need to have more respect for us unknown countries' war dead. Sorry if I got a little bitchy in that post, but Remembrance Day is this Thursday.

Horses arse- Britain saves France America saves Britain and Australia and New Zealand do all the dog work.
France has been in IC a while think the FFL is there
Toss in Canada. Us main commonwealth countries got all that dog work.

Let's see... I believe the only nation in that list who doesn't qualify is Canada. For example, in the Normandy invasion there were seven American divisions, two British divisions, a Canadian division, and a composite brigade made up of troops from the occupied territories.

WAR EFFORT not D-Day effort. Jeebus.

Just so everyone knows Napolean didnt capture Malta it was handed to him on a plate by French Knights Hospitilier or Templar who thought French power more important than their brotherhood Dastards

Oh god... now Ivory Coast gets to kick France in the ass.

You must be french....

I'm willing to bet a couple of my friends and I could take out your little Legion Entrangere with a paintball gun and 20 bucks

My friends, too. Of course we all served in the US Marines. So, I don't think we'd need the paintball guns. And we'd need the $20 to buy some beer ahead of time.

As a concerned citizen of the world, I denounce this french militarism, and demand they withdraw their troops immeadiately, etc.

How dare they fight this illegal war blah blah blah blah. !!!!!!! :mad:

Where is the world's outrage at this? I can see how the idea of French warriors can be outrageous, but this is clearly the Wrong War, at the Wrong Time, in the Wrong Place! Where are the UN resolutions supporting this action? My Goodness, these French are killing babies and old people and dogs and cats and goldfish, for Pete's sake! Where is Michael Moore? Where is Alec Baldwin? Bring on the Screen Actors and save these innocents in the Ivory Coast!

France is actually more active than the US in the continent that needs outside help most, Africa. Just look at Congo, the most deadly war since WW2.

I do not like the politics of France or the UN usually. They are both terribly corrupt and the UN particularly is slow to react to real emergencies like in Sudan, Kosovo and Rwanda but in Congo and Sierra Leone at least France and the UN have the moral high ground over both Britain and the US.

Why do Americans keep singling out the French as cowards? They stood up to Hitler with Britain when he invaded Poland in 1939. The US did not enter the war until 1942.

The US was practicing "non-involvement" in a war that didn't affect us. We got involved directly after the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. (That's a joke from Animal House, not a symptom of Government Education) We did[/] provide a bunch of support to the Brits and probably would have done the same for the French, if they hadn't folded faster than a house of cards. Can you say "Vichy"?
As far as Iraq is concerned, there is not a single nation in the World apart from the US where the majority of the population were in favour of invading Iraq. So I don't see why the French should be the brunt of these attacks, if anything the US should be claiming the whole world are cowards.

I was going to say something nasty about the French here, but what this paragraph really points out is the author's lack of knowledge of representative government. [I]Majority rule only works in a mob. People elect their governments to make decisions without consulting the majority every time. Then the Pols stand for re-election, based on those decisions. If they are making the wrong decisions and don't have good enough campaign staffs, the population throws them out. I assume the author is familiar with this concept, now that I've mentioned it.

What the hell does Iraq have to do with the French and the Ivory Coast, anyway?

Wasn't it the French army that actually liberated America from British rule anyway? They probably leave that out of your history books over there though.

The French, Layfayette, and his troops gave us an enormous boost when we really needed it. Thanks forever for that help. We did the liberating ourselves, though, thank you. Our revolutionaries, or insurgents as has become the popular word, bore the brunt of the battles with the English, lost their lives and property to the English, and eventually defeatee them.

The French then revolted against the nobles and all became "citizens". Just like we did...Well not quite. At the cost of many lives, much duplicity, and the eventual replacement of the King by an Emperor, the French declared their independence from the King and their loyalty to Robespierre inthe same breath. I don't think they really learned the lesson of independence in 1776. I'm still not sure they understand liberty, fraternity, and equality in the sense that we do in the U.S.

Anyhow, we never did forget the French and how they were willing to aid us in our battle for independence. We saw their efforts against the Germans in 1914 and many from the U.S. went to serve the French before the U.S. officially declared war. When General John J. Pershing arrived in France, he famously said, "Lafayette, we are here!".

But again, what does this have to do with the awful and dastardly French attacks on the poor government of the Ivory Coast?

Regards,

But again, what does this have to do with the awful and dastardly French attacks on the poor government of the Ivory Coast?

Because for a year the french and african troops under a mandate of the UN had been acting has a peacekeeping force between rebel in the north and loyalist troup in the south, and the destruction of airplanes that are bombing those troops and the rebel position in violation of the treaty signed by both side is in defined in the rule of engagement of the UN mandate?

But I suppose that in your haste to disgorge your hate of France you did not bother to read the whole tread.

Isn't it Cote d'Ivoire now?

Yes it is Cote d'Ivoire! It is NOT called Ivory Coast.

Why do Americans keep singling out the French as cowards? They stood up to Hitler with Britain when he invaded Poland in 1939. The US did not enter the war until 1942.

1941 dude and if you look at the history, we've been involved almost from the start with supplying Britain with war material. So we can actually say that we were supporting the allies before we formally got involved.

As far as Iraq is concerned, there is not a single nation in the World apart from the US where the majority of the population were in favour of invading Iraq. So I don't see why the French should be the brunt of these attacks, if anything the US should be claiming the whole world are cowards.


However, the nations that didn't have full popular support STILL SENT TROOPS!!! The French did not. But this isn't about Iraq but about Cote d'Ivoire.

Wasn't it the French army that actually liberated America from British rule anyway? They probably leave that out of your history books over there though.

No actually it wasnt! They assisted but it was actually the colonists that did most of the fighting. Some of them help trained our forces but it was Colonists against the Brits with the French military assisting in bottling up General Cornwallis at Yorktwon.

Oh god... now Ivory Coast gets to kick France in the ass.

It is called Cote d'Ivoire, not Ivory Coast.

"Operation Licorne" is a peace-keeping operation, together with the UN forces, that has taken place in this former French colony. The operation tries to calm down both the rebels and Gbagbo, so as to start negotiations.
Now if I understand well Gbagbo's air forces bombed a French position ?
Well, we won't engage war on Ivory Coast : what would we do once the "peace-keeping war" over ? Let the civil war continue ? Hey guys we're not the US army !

Neither French Army nor UN forces will withdraw, measures will be taken against the Gbagbo regime, but not in a military way.
You know, for 5 years now French troops have also kept peace in Mitrovica, Kosovo, in order to avoid war between Serbian and Albanian populations. It's sometimes tense but there's no more "ethnic purge" or houses burnt. No hostility towards the French soldiers...

Oh, well, by the way that's true. I'm French.

As a concerned citizen of the world, I denounce this french militarism, and demand they withdraw their troops immeadiately, etc.

How dare they fight this illegal war blah blah blah blah. !!!!!!! :mad:
agreed

agreed

Me too. Evil jap Commies!

Only one mention of it in the whole topic. Summary:

France was invaded by three armies from Spain, Austria and the Catholic League. 2/3 of France was occupied and the Hapsburgs had almost reached Paris. France was bankrupt from 5 years of funding the Swedish (Annual subsidy: 400,000). Despite all this, it managed to beat back the Hapsburgs and in the treaty of Westphalia gained (amongst others): Navarre, Alsace-Lorraine, most of Northern Italy and had already taken in three german states as protectorates.

(Feel free to correct me. My knowledge of the thirty yars war is not complete)

here is a link for info on the treaty of Westphalia and the thirty year's

[EMAIL=http://www.pipeline.com/~cwa/Westphalia_Phase.htm]

God, people with this attitude really get to me. France has kept peace in this region for a long time now.

One attack on their forces does not mean they are unsuccessful, their presence is the only thing that would stop a bloody civil war that would kill tens of thousands.

How dare you in your smug ignorance presume that France should remove a buffer-zone simply because, I assume, you are filled with some pseudo-partiotic hatred.
I'm saying that they remove it because the situation is fragile. I'm not trying to bash France, I'm just saying that any country must realize its heavy obligations in sub-Sahara Africa. The risks far outweigh the rewards. Even the French should know this by now, as France, along with Britain and South Africa, have lost their colonial empires down there.
Besides, in the grand scheme of things, I see Cote d'Ivoire as unimportant right now, and not worth the risks. If the Yamoussoukro government is damaged anymore, chances are that it may fall, whether the French want it or not. The only viable alternative would be occupation, and with the anti-French mobs and rebels, it'll be just as hard as the US occupation of Iraq. It may be harder, if Islamic fundementalists decide to recruit from Cote d'Ivoire's large Muslim population. So I feel that the French better leave. It's not worth it. In fact, I suggest that any peacekeeping force in Africa, like that in Sierre Leone, better get the hell out of there.

Only one mention of it in the whole topic. Summary:

France was invaded by three armies from Spain, Austria and the Catholic League. 2/3 of France was occupied and the Hapsburgs had almost reached Paris. France was bankrupt from 5 years of funding the Swedish (Annual subsidy: 400,000). Despite all this, it managed to beat back the Hapsburgs and in the treaty of Westphalia gained (amongst others): Navarre, Alsace-Lorraine, most of Northern Italy and had already taken in three german states as protectorates.

(Feel free to correct me. My knowledge of the thirty yars war is not complete)
What are you talking about? :confused: When is this supposed to happen? Surely not during the 30 year war?

I think I finally understand whats going on in Ivory coast. Since yesterday I was wondering why government forces would attack French troops. According to German correspondents who are in the country the government is feeling strong enough to take on the rebels who control the north of the country. And the UN troops, the bulk of them beeing French, are in their way. Also French companies and institutions have been target of looting mobs. But according to the journalists theres a system specificly targeted at France behind the violence. They said that the Renault franchise was completly destroyed while the one owned by Mercedes was untouched.

The French, Layfayette, and his troops gave us an enormous boost when we really needed it. Thanks forever for that help. We did the liberating ourselves, though, thank you. Our revolutionaries, or insurgents as has become the popular word, bore the brunt of the battles with the English, lost their lives and property to the English, and eventually defeatee them.

Regards,

French Blockade stuffed the British not the Continental army.

French Blockade stuffed the British not the Continental army.

Stuffed them at Yorktown yes but the Continental Army still fought against the British there too along side French Troops.

The French, Layfayette, and his troops gave us an enormous boost when we really needed it. Thanks forever for that help. We did the liberating ourselves, though, thank you

Nice revisionisme. Ever read something about the US revolution?
Ever heared about Yorktown, French navies victory over teh Brittish fleet and their forces on land?
That where , according to the US military the only ones capable to use artillery and to fight against the trained Britts, Washington and other US troops would have been slaughtered without them.

France brings out big guns against Ivory Coast mobs

"France rolled out overwhelming military force Sunday to put down an explosion of anti-French violence in its former West African colony Ivory Coast, deploying troops, armored vehicles and helicopter gunships against machete-waving mobs that hunted house to house for foreigners."

This was in the In Brief blurp in the Intelligencer Journal

Sad to see people die. Civil wars are never good.

As an American, I wish the French luck at keeping the peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/international/africa/09ivory.html

It appears that a street battle may be brewing in Abijan. It may even turn into a real one.

Now, time for my rant.
I have had it with you people. I think that, if this continues, it'll blow up in France's face, and require a long-term committment, with heavy costs in both money and lives. But does anyone take me seriously? Hell no. They think I'm just some French-bashing, flag worshipping, fundementalist Christian cowboy American. Well all I'm trying to do is tell the French people how they can make a clean exit, and avoid a mess. Not that they want to listen to me, of course. What is an American to any of them? What is an American to anyone on these fora?

Nice revisionisme. Ever read something about the US revolution?
Ever heared about Yorktown, French navies victory over teh Brittish fleet and their forces on land?
That where , according to the US military the only ones capable to use artillery and to fight against the trained Britts, Washington and other US troops would have been slaughtered without them.
Basil we've been over this before. Your not allowed to make things up, and yet you continue to do it, and if you do, at least spell with some degree of proficiency.

Yorktown is being mentioned multiple times now, as a proof of French importance, but lets think of a few things here.

1) Cornwallis was effectively pinioned off from any land route, meaning he could only take to the sea, and would have to start all over again, with only what his ships could carry.

2) England was already seething with resentment over the war, and internal dissension appeared well on its way to ending the war effort by itself, thanks to high prices and heavy taxation.

3) Prime Minister Pitt, widely hailed as the only man capable of winning the war, was dead, leaving Britain with no viable options for a capable commander in chief.

4) British troops in the rest of America were effectively pinioned inside New York, without much of chance at expansion due to heavily reduced numbers and supplies.

5) The Southern backcountry had already proven itself to hard for British troops to control, meaning Cornwallis would either have to stick to the coast, or go North, thereby effectively losing any hope of cutting the states in half.

6) American forces were finally beginning to receive the supplies they had been asking for the entire war, uniforms, ammunition, and just an important:socks.

Conclusion: The American forces could viably have ended the war without French aid. It would have taken longer, and would likely have cost the Northern states more damage, however the British had lost almost all of their viable attack options, with little hope of reinforcement from a homeland that was falling into dissension.

Conclusion: The American forces could viably have ended the war without French aid. It would have taken longer, and would likely have cost the Northern states more damage, however the British had lost almost all of their viable attack options, with little hope of reinforcement from a homeland that was falling into dissension.

True, but you cannot say for sure that the Americans would have won without French support. Things could have changed quite easily, there's no way to know for sure. The fact is that the French helped us win the American Revolution.

The fact is that the French helped us win the American Revolution.
And thats something they should be ashamed of for all eternity.

And thats something they should be forever ashamed of.

That may well be your opinion. I'm just saying that it is a fact that France helped America win the American Revolution, and all the theorizing about what might have been is pointless because it didn't.

3) Prime Minister Pitt, widely hailed as the only man capable of winning the war, was dead, leaving Britain with no viable options for a capable commander in chief.

4) British troops in the rest of America were effectively pinioned inside New York, without much of chance at expansion due to heavily reduced numbers and supplies.

5) The Southern backcountry had already proven itself to hard for British troops to control, meaning Cornwallis would either have to stick to the coast, or go North, thereby effectively losing any hope of cutting the states in half.

Conclusion: The American forces could viably have ended the war without French aid. It would have taken longer, and would likely have cost the Northern states more damage, however the British had lost almost all of their viable attack options, with little hope of reinforcement from a homeland that was falling into dissension.

3)Pitts abilities as a politician had no sway on the battlefield,Diplomacy gets left behind
4)Lack of supplies caused by French and spanish marrauding
5)Thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
Conclusion because of french and Spanish intervention Britan was unable to concentrate forces or recieve supplies and so could not make gains without being attacked from the rear.

3)Pitts abilities as a politician had no sway on the battlefield,Diplomacy gets left behind
4)Lack of supplies caused by French and spanish marrauding
5)Thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
Conclusion because of french and Spanish intervention Britan was unable to concentrate forces or recieve supplies and so could not make gains without being attacked from the rear.
Responses
3) Pitt was considered the greatest statesman of his era. It was thanks to him that Britain won the Seven Years War, and without him they could not effectively run their campaigns from home.
4) Royal Fleet had been repositioning largely to protect its supply ships. Convoying had also gone up, making marauding largely a failed venture. True supply issues were the extreme distance, and lack of a secure depot (New York was hard to defend due to outland inlets allowing raids).
5) Absolutely incorrect. The Southern Backcountry had proven itself impenetrable to the British thanks to its very make-up. Because of the format of widely spread farmsteads, the British could do no more than take control of the roads, leading to easy ambushes and guerrila warfare. There was just nothing to control that would lead to a complete conquest of said area. French and Spanish intervention in that area was absolutely negligable, as Cornwallis had already retreated to the coast long before the French Fleet was even rumored to be coming.
Conclusion: Marauding forces could only cause marginal losses, allowing Great Britain to continue to send supplies. However, a lack of a secure depot because of a lack of a secured base away from inland raiding had not been found, and was unlikely to be created. Concentration of forces had never been an issue, as it was more the inability to subdue the whole of the country, along with the extreme distances involved that eventually destroyed Great Britain's chances.