The French

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

And have a centuries long reputation as having the gonads of a hummingbird. Do they still have the Maginot line?

Your complete lack of knowledge of history is only surpassed by the inane drivel you repeated post on every topic.

Do you relish repeating lies on every subject or are you too stupid to realize that you do so?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Your complete lack of knowledge of history is only surpassed by the inane drivel you repeated post on every topic.

Do you relish repeating lies on every subject or are you too stupid to realize that you do so?

Lack of history? Maybe a smart guy like you can inform us on some French military success? Napoleon is a little too long ago to matter. Anything since then?

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

Lack of history? Maybe a smart guy like you can inform us on some French military success? Napoleon is a little too long ago to matter. Anything since then?

What, you don't know how to do research? Too stupid or too lazy?

Let's list some of the US military opportunities since WW II.

Korea = Stalemate
Hungary = We could not help them
Viet Nam = Stalemate leading to Complete Loss
Czechoslovakia = We could not help them
Granada = Yea! We're Number 1!!!!!!!!!
Panama = Yea! We're number 1, again!!!! (We sure kick ass on minuscule countries)
Gulf War 1 = Yea! We're number !!!!!!!!!
Afghanistan = Stalemate/slipping into loss at present
Irag = Work in progress/to soon to tell
Georgia = We could not help them

Not all that impressive for the world's number 1 power now is it? And before the neocons flame me for dissing our soldiers, I'm not, I was one of them, were you? Military success is dependent on many more attributes and factors than just the quality of the soldiers.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

That's just more US propaganda fed to the unknowing masses.

No it is fact a virus wiped out the french vines and they were grafted with stock from CA....

[tabs]

At this juncture I don't know who is more stupid the Mule or RPKQ for responding to him eg taking him seriousily.

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by tabs

No it is fact a virus wiped out the french vines and they were grafted with stock from CA....

This argument about grape vines is seriously silly. It’s history . . .

California's first documented imported European wine vines were planted in Los Angeles in 1833 by Jean-Louis Vignes. In the 1850s and '60s, the colorful Agoston Harazsthy, a Hungarian soldier, merchant and promoter, made several trips to import cuttings from 165 of the greatest European vineyards to California. Some of this endeavor was at his personal expense and some through grants from the state. Overall, he introduced about 300 different grape varieties, although some were lost prior to testing, due to difficulties in preserving and handling.

Considered the Founder of the California Wine Industry, Harazsthy contributed his enthusiasm and optimism for the future of wine, along with considerable personal effort and risk. He founded Buena Vista winery and promoted vine planting over much of Northern California. He dug extensive caves for cellaring, promoted hillside planting, fostered the idea of non-irrigated vineyards and suggested Redwood for casks when oak supplies ran low.

Fast forward . . .

In 1863, species of native American grapes were taken to Botanical Gardens in England. These cuttings carried a species of root louse called phylloxera vastatrix which attacks and feeds on the vine roots and leaves. Phylloxera is indigenous to the Mississippi River Valley and was unknown outside North America at the time. Powdery mildew, a fungal disease, also indigenous to North America, had previously migrated to Europe and caused problems in some areas. No one, however, had any idea of the wide-reaching destructive potential of Phylloxera.

Native American varieties developed resistance to phylloxera by evolving a thick and tough root bark, so that they were relatively immune to damage. The vinifera vines had no such evolutionary protection and phylloxera ate away at their roots, causing them to rot and the plant to die and driving the pests to seek other nearby live hosts, spreading inexorably through entire vineyards and on to others.

By 1865, phylloxera had spread to vines in Provence. Over the next 20 years, it inhabited and decimated nearly all the vineyards of Europe. Many methods were attempted to eradicate phylloxera: flooding, where possible, and injecting the soil with carbon bisulfide, had some success in checking the louse, but were costly and the pests came back as soon as the treatments stopped.

Finally Thomas Munson, a horticulturist from Dennison, Texas, realized that native American vines were resistant and suggested grafting the vinifera vines onto riparia hybrid rootsocks. So, there began a long, laborious process of grafting every wine vine in Europe over to American rootstocks. It was only in this manner that the European wine industry could be retrieved from extinction. Downy mildew, another fungal disease in American grapevines, unfortunately probably migrated to Europe on some of the rootstocks imported for grafting. One tragic consequence of the Phylloxera devastation is that many of the native species indigenous to Europe, since they were of negligible commercial value, were not perpetuated by grafting and became extinct.

There was some debate generated by this replanting that the quality declined in "post-phylloxera" wines. Whether this was indeed the case and whether this was due to the rootstocks themselves or to the relatively sudden and nearly universal youth of the vines, or to changes in vinification techniques, or to some other concurrent factor or variable, is unknown. Undoubtedly, it will remain a matter of theory and opinion and provide animated conversation at wine tastings, but ultimately never be proven.

The blight resulted in shortages of wine for many years, so that fraud and adulteration became problems, eventually leading French wine growers to the form the system of Appellation Controlée, which has become the model for all wine producing countries to both protect wine trade reputations and authenticate products for consumers.

So . .

A Frenchman & Hungarian establish California grape stock (from European cuttings). English take back cuttings with a disease from North America which infects European grapes. An American comes up with idea of grafting American roots (actually old Euro stock) to Euro vines & saves the day.

America in other words, merely gave the damn grape stock back since they were European in the first place because indigenous North American grapes are crap for wine as we all know, right?

Got the story now? Let me know when you want another wine lesson.

Source: http://www.winepros.org/wine101/history.htm

Ian

[Christien]

Ian, how dare you bring facts and reason into a PPOT discussion?

[Danimal16]

Just kinda throwin in my two cents. The French have been keen on us for awhile in this war. Their intell guys along with these troopers that were recently lost have been essential to all of the freedom loving folks on the planet. They DO DESERVE our respect.

I used to feel the same way about the French. But one very short trip to Europe changed my preception completly. As a youngster I studied WWII and during the mid-60's my opinion formed from my observation of de-Gualle (pardon my spelling). I remember the aire of arrogance that he displayed and I did not like it.

So, fast forward to July 2001. I went to Europe for my first visit (I have been a pac side sailor for all this time). Went to London, Cambridge lots of visiting of WWII sites. Well I happened to pick up a book called "Finest Hour" and went on to pick up a few more. I had the opportunity to speak to the English, and of course the French came up as the English would provide me their insights on my visit to Paris.

To make a long story short, I came away with a completely different feeling about de Gaul and loved Paris. I would go back in a heart beat. Did I meet some knucklehead Frenchmen, sure, but they were few and far between. I understand the hurt that came from WWII between the French Vichey and the other allied forces but that is long ago, and the Free French, well they were something. I guess the best illustration would be what an English Cab Driver stated, "Oh so you have never been to Paris?", Me, "Never. Are the stories true about the Parisians?". He, "Well, you'll find out, afterall they are French!". He said he loved it and there is no doubt, so did I.

[RWebb]

Thanks for clearing up the details Ian.

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

What, you don't know how to do research? Too stupid or too lazy?

Let's list some of the US military opportunities since WW II.

Korea = Stalemate
Hungary = We could not help them
Viet Nam = Stalemate leading to Complete Loss
Czechoslovakia = We could not help them
Granada = Yea! We're Number 1!!!!!!!!!
Panama = Yea! We're number 1, again!!!! (We sure kick ass on minuscule countries)
Gulf War 1 = Yea! We're number !!!!!!!!!
Afghanistan = Stalemate/slipping into loss at present
Irag = Work in progress/to soon to tell
Georgia = We could not help them

Not all that impressive for the world's number 1 power now is it? And before the neocons flame me for dissing our soldiers, I'm not, I was one of them, were you? Military success is dependent on many more attributes and factors than just the quality of the soldiers.

Your assessment of a classic insurgent war shows a lack of understanding. The current situation, the current nature of modern warfare, the actors and the interrelated actions would clearly indicate that you fail to understand that Gulf War 1, Afghanistan (which is not in a stalemate, its called a counterinsurgency), and Iraq and Georgia are all related to a conflict that has been going on clearly since the early 1980s. Its just that it is ugly and fought in arenas that are foreign to most Americans, like our media and our political parties as well as some hell hole wadi POS land that most would just like to forget.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

They are a major world power.

Only country to have a nuclear aircraft carrier besides the US.

They are a nuclear power with intercontinental delivery capability.

They are a member of the G8 and the UN Security consul.

They are an economic power.

They send troops where they feel troops would do the most good, not to impress you.

Well put.

And their contributions to world culture have been huge. People have been talking about food & wine (second to none and a cuisine equal to Chinese in its depth and comprehensiveness)....

BUT they made tremendous contributions to science and technology - not to mention military strategy - esp. the early use of armor BTW.

The US pretty much took over the world cultural domination business a century ago (cultural, if not economic; economic if not military), but the French hung in there for quite a while.

Further back, the proto-French (the Franks) were one of the "savage tribes" that helped wipe out the Roman Empire. That was both good and bad, and was pre-Brie. But there is a long history there.

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Your complete lack of knowledge of history is only surpassed by the inane drivel you repeated post on every topic.

Do you relish repeating lies on every subject or are you too stupid to realize that you do so?

Read an "Army at Dawn". This IS HISTORY and explains why so many GIs feel the way they do about the French Military at that time. Like the British captured in Singapore and subsequent treatment by the Japanese, it is no surprise there are some very hard feelings by the "Greatest Generation" that may remain today.

[creaturecat]

American "culture" has dominated for a century?
Please expand upon what American "culture" is, and how it has dominated.
Note : not referring to "car culture", "hamburger culture" "budweiser culture"etc.

[lendaddy]

My Grandfather was in Paris during WWII, he doesn't exactly sing their praises. By itself that means little, but his sentiment seems to be the default.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

What, you don't know how to do research? Too stupid or too lazy?

Let's list some of the US military opportunities since WW II.

Korea = Stalemate
Hungary = We could not help them
Viet Nam = Stalemate leading to Complete Loss
Czechoslovakia = We could not help them
Granada = Yea! We're Number 1!!!!!!!!!
Panama = Yea! We're number 1, again!!!! (We sure kick ass on minuscule countries)
Gulf War 1 = Yea! We're number !!!!!!!!!
Afghanistan = Stalemate/slipping into loss at present
Irag = Work in progress/to soon to tell
Georgia = We could not help them

Not all that impressive for the world's number 1 power now is it? And before the neocons flame me for dissing our soldiers, I'm not, I was one of them, were you? Military success is dependent on many more attributes and factors than just the quality of the soldiers.

I'm guessing your attempt to change the subject means you dont know of any French military success.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

They are a major world power.

Only country to have a nuclear aircraft carrier besides the US.

They are a nuclear power with intercontinental delivery capability.

They are a member of the G8 and the UN Security consul.

They are an economic power.

They send troops where they feel troops would do the most good, not to impress you.

Don't get too carried away. They have the smallest economy (in PPP) of the permanent members of the UNSC.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

Your assessment of a classic insurgent war shows a lack of understanding. The current situation, the current nature of modern warfare, the actors and the interrelated actions would clearly indicate that you fail to understand that Gulf War 1, Afghanistan (which is not in a stalemate, its called a counterinsurgency), and Iraq and Georgia are all related to a conflict that has been going on clearly since the early 1980s. Its just that it is ugly and fought in arenas that are foreign to most Americans, like our media and our political parties as well as some hell hole wadi POS land that most would just like to forget.

You are mistaken. I understand completely about counterinsurgency warfare. The type of warfare was not in question, read the thread. I listed most of the possible and actual US military involvements since WW II. How many were an unqualified success? How many are still up for grabs? How many resulted in failure?

Location and type of warfare was not discussed. Results were the focus of the discussion.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by aap1966

The point is that the guys on the front line are faced with more danger in a week than most of us face in a lifetime. I would hope to acquit myself as well as the vast majority of them, but I will never really know. No-one would unless in that situation.

The average black male in Philadelphia has a greater chance of being shot than the typical US solider in Iraq.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Don't get too carried away. They have the smallest economy (in PPP) of the permanent members of the UNSC.

Not carried away at all. Just posted facts.

They also have the highest rated health care in the world.

They also have the largest highspeed rail system in the world.

They also have the only profitable space program in the world.

They also have a great balance of work/life.

They also are more productive than American per hour worked.

Sorry. Just some more facts for you.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Mule

I'm guessing your attempt to change the subject means you dont know of any French military success.

I'm not guessing, I'm stating you are too stupid or too lazy to educate yourself.