For the record, both French and German military forces operated in support of the Iraq campaign in 2002 and 2003. A large bit for them was providing warships to perform war cargo security escorts in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Oman.
Two possibilities. The Article(s) I read which alleged this were completely wrong, or the French were practicing old school diplomacy.
The evil Comte de Vergennes, French diplomat and backstabber extraordinaire
Russia and Austria had volunteered their services as mediators between George III and the Americans; but Lord North's government rejected the offer, so that Mr. Adams had his journey for nothing, and presently went back to Holland. His first and most arduous task was to persuade the Dutch government to recognize him as minister from the independent United States. In this Vergennes, who wished the Americans to feel exclusively dependent upon France, and to have no other friendships or alliances, covertly opposed him. From first to last the aid extended by France to the Americans in the revolutionary war was purely selfish. That despotic government wished no good to a people struggling to preserve the immemorial principles of English liberty, and the policy of Vergennes was to extend just enough aid to us to enable us to prolong the war so that colonies and mother country might alike be weakened. When he pretended to be the disinterested friend of the Americans, he professed to be under the influence of sentiments that he did not really feel; and he thus succeeded in winning from congress a confidence to which he was in no wise entitled. But he could not hoodwink John Adams, who wrote home that the duke de la Vauguyon, the French ambassador at The Hague, was doing everything in his power to obstruct the progress of the negotiations; and in this, Adams correctly inferred, he was acting under secret instructions from Vergennes. As a diplomatist Adams was in a certain sense Napoleonic; he introduced new and strange methods of warfare, which disconcerted the perfidious intriguers of the old school, of which Vergennes and Talleyrand were typical examples. Instead of beating about the bush and seeking to foil trickery by trickery (a business in which the wily Frenchman would doubtless have proved more than his match), he went straight to the duke de la Vauguyon and bluntly told him that he saw plainly what he was up to, and that it was of no use, since "no advice of his or of the count de Vergennes, nor even a requisition from the king, should restrain me." The duke saw that Adams meant exactly what he said, and, finding that it was useless to oppose the negotiations, "fell in with me, in order to give the air of French influence" to them. Events worked steadily and rapidly in Adams's favor. The plunder of St. Eustatius early in 1781 had raised the wrath of the Dutch against Great Britain to fever heat. In November came tidings of the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. By this time Adams had published so many articles as to give the Dutch some idea as to what sort of people the Americans were. He had some months before presented a petition to the states general, asking them to recognize him as minister from an independent nation. With his wonted boldness he now demanded a plain and unambiguous answer to this petition, and followed up the demand by visiting the representatives of the several cities in person and arguing his case. As the reward of this persistent energy, Mr. Adams had the pleasure of seeing the independence of the United States formally recognized by Holland on the 19th of April 1782. This success was vigorously followed up. A Dutch loan of $2,000,000 was soon negotiated, and on the 7th of October a treaty of amity and commerce, the second, which was ratified with the United States as an independent nation, was signed at The Hague.
ladajo wrote:As someone posted earlier, are you afraid to put on a green scarf and walk in the street when your police drive by? Are you afraid to post your opinion against something your government does on a large piece of cardboard and walk down the street with it to show others?
So, you accept that your government sometimes acts wrong? As my government.
I must say, Iranian laws, every day become better and more freedom. This is a forward progression.
It is better that we are trying to improve circumstances, instead of war and destruction.....
The russians did not want the Japanese to surrender as they had their own ideas about pressing ahead with the russian attack on Japan. The russians were not very happy when we ended the war before they were ready to. They wanted more, and knew that land grab was the best way. Plus there were "old" debts to settle.
The US unconditional surrender point with Japan was not a last minute idea. It was a theme brought to an effective culmination. The US knew clearly that to get the Japanese to fully end the war, they had to be forced to unconditional terms.
War termination is a huge topic these days in government and military circles. And much brain blood has been shed in pursuit of its understanding. One of the best ever case studies is looking at what the Japanese did to the Russians during the Russo-Japanese fight from a war termination perspective. The Japanese had the whole thing mapped out, to include pre-emptive arrangments to have the US broker the peace, including the sites to do it before they committed to the fight.
Very smart stuff. Also, very Clauzwitzian.
ladajo wrote:As someone posted earlier, are you afraid to put on a green scarf and walk in the street when your police drive by? Are you afraid to post your opinion against something your government does on a large piece of cardboard and walk down the street with it to show others?
So, you accept that your government sometimes acts wrong? As my government.
I must say, Iranian laws, every day become better and more freedom. This is a forward progression.
It is better that we are trying to improve circumstances, instead of war and destruction.....
Of course I accept that my government is wrong at times. I can even go tell them and not be afraid of being shot or arrested for it. Can you?
For the record, both French and German military forces operated in support of the Iraq campaign in 2002 and 2003. A large bit for them was providing warships to perform war cargo security escorts in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Oman.
Two possibilities. The Article(s) I read which alleged this were completely wrong, or the French were practicing old school diplomacy.
The evil Comte de Vergennes, French diplomat and backstabber extraordinaire
Russia and Austria had volunteered their services as mediators between George III and the Americans; but Lord North's government rejected the offer, so that Mr. Adams had his journey for nothing, and presently went back to Holland. His first and most arduous task was to persuade the Dutch government to recognize him as minister from the independent United States. In this Vergennes, who wished the Americans to feel exclusively dependent upon France, and to have no other friendships or alliances, covertly opposed him. From first to last the aid extended by France to the Americans in the revolutionary war was purely selfish. That despotic government wished no good to a people struggling to preserve the immemorial principles of English liberty, and the policy of Vergennes was to extend just enough aid to us to enable us to prolong the war so that colonies and mother country might alike be weakened. When he pretended to be the disinterested friend of the Americans, he professed to be under the influence of sentiments that he did not really feel; and he thus succeeded in winning from congress a confidence to which he was in no wise entitled. But he could not hoodwink John Adams, who wrote home that the duke de la Vauguyon, the French ambassador at The Hague, was doing everything in his power to obstruct the progress of the negotiations; and in this, Adams correctly inferred, he was acting under secret instructions from Vergennes. As a diplomatist Adams was in a certain sense Napoleonic; he introduced new and strange methods of warfare, which disconcerted the perfidious intriguers of the old school, of which Vergennes and Talleyrand were typical examples. Instead of beating about the bush and seeking to foil trickery by trickery (a business in which the wily Frenchman would doubtless have proved more than his match), he went straight to the duke de la Vauguyon and bluntly told him that he saw plainly what he was up to, and that it was of no use, since "no advice of his or of the count de Vergennes, nor even a requisition from the king, should restrain me." The duke saw that Adams meant exactly what he said, and, finding that it was useless to oppose the negotiations, "fell in with me, in order to give the air of French influence" to them. Events worked steadily and rapidly in Adams's favor. The plunder of St. Eustatius early in 1781 had raised the wrath of the Dutch against Great Britain to fever heat. In November came tidings of the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. By this time Adams had published so many articles as to give the Dutch some idea as to what sort of people the Americans were. He had some months before presented a petition to the states general, asking them to recognize him as minister from an independent nation. With his wonted boldness he now demanded a plain and unambiguous answer to this petition, and followed up the demand by visiting the representatives of the several cities in person and arguing his case. As the reward of this persistent energy, Mr. Adams had the pleasure of seeing the independence of the United States formally recognized by Holland on the 19th of April 1782. This success was vigorously followed up. A Dutch loan of $2,000,000 was soon negotiated, and on the 7th of October a treaty of amity and commerce, the second, which was ratified with the United States as an independent nation, was signed at The Hague.
MSimon wrote:As you well know cultures in decline take up those bad habits. Laws or no laws. It all depends on people's estimate of their future.
Russia has similar problems re:prostitution. Their drug of choice is alcohol. Mostly. But heroin is used too.
You want to prevent that from happening in the US? Laws against it are useless. And in fact only spread it around. You can't regulate black markets. So what can be done? Make the culture attractive.
A good place to start would be to make marriage an attractive proposition for men.
As the link shows "free love" is well advanced in America. And conservatives who are supposed to care are doing NOTHING about the problem except fighting symptoms.
I was reading Pat Buchanan the other day and he deplores the fact that those of European descent are not reproducing in America. I did my part - 4 children. But my boys tell me that marriage is a losing proposition and they have no interest in it. And they know all about being Pick Up Artists. PUAs. I did give them a few pointers. I do tell them that the greatest adventure life offers is raising a family. Maybe when/if they are ready they will remember.
It is one big ball of knoted twine, and we need to cut a few detrimental positive feedback loops, but the problem with fooling with such a complicated system is the law of unintended consequences.
That being said, there are a few things we know work because we've been down that road before. Get government out of the business of feeding and clothing women who make bad decisions, and get them INTO the business of chasing down the men that are leaving their responsibilities behind.
None of this is politically practical, but it is exactly what needs to be done. Bring back the social stigma and marriage will become a much better proposition for males that find it difficult to get any outside of marriage. It was governmental interference in society that CAUSED the problem. The problem starts with free government money used for Liberal people's emotional whims.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo wrote:Of course I accept that my government is wrong at times. I can even go tell them and not be afraid of being shot or arrested for it. Can you?
Yes, I can too. Constructive criticism, it is always acceptable.
There was a significant part of the Japanese who even post two atomic bombs were unwilling to end the war. An understanding of their culture may not have helped. And in any case Americans were unwilling to wait 25 or 50 years for the Japanese culture to change. We wanted results NOW! And we got them. To the benefit of the Japanese as well as ourselves.
I'm not apologizing for anything we did. It was absolutely the right thing to do. As you said, they were willing to fight through an indefinite number of Atomic bombings.
My recollection of my reading is that there had been earlier occasions during which the Japanese had considered surrender, but it always came back to our "unconditional" demand, and most Japanese regarded this as allowing us to humiliate or imprison/execute their Emperor, and they simply wouldn't allow it. Some of us perhaps did give them that impression.
Anyway, perhaps we could have ended it faster had the right Americans had understood their culture better. Offering a Diplomatic respect to their Emperor was a condition that we eventually agreed to anyway.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
MSimon wrote:The motivation may not be 12ers. It may be demographic collapse. It won't be the first time a country went to war in order to solve its internal problems.
In the case of the US I'm betting on a war with Mexico in the next 10 or 20 years.
As the Mexican government will by then have gotten serious with their criminal gangs, or be replaced by them, that is not all that risky of a bet. The way things are going, the Drug cartels are going to be ruling Mexico shortly, and they we will have to go to war with them to wipe them out.
Mexico needs to do it first.
MSimon wrote:
All that needs to be done relative to the Muslim world is wait. They are committing national suicide. Watch Egypt. Within 12 months they will be starving.
Desperate people will do desperate things. I fear you may be right though. We may be starving as well, if we are not careful.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo wrote:So then, since you are without fear of your government, what things do they do that you are very much against?
We are all ears.
Like every other citizens, I am critical of some government functions. Such as inflation and .....
Inflation is not a government function. It is a result of economy and policy.
What policy or actions that your government takes do you not agree with? What are the stupidist things that your government has done over the past year?
