Posted on 11/26/2015 7:29:29 AM PST by rktman
During the November 25 airing of Fox News’ Special Report, French Ambassador to the United States Gerard Araud countered Donald Trump’s emphasis on the importance of an armed citizenry by claiming that armed citizens succeed in defending themselves “only in the movies.â€
Araud was specifically reacting to a tweet sent after the January 7 Charlie Hebdo attacks in which Trump wrote, “Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?†Talking Points Memo reported that Araud responded to the tweet by calling Trump a “vulture,†then deleted the tweet after attacking Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They are wrong but it’s the cowards talking. They need to be ignored.
Very interesting analysis. I have long thought the World Wars had profound effects that will reverberate for centuries. As for the French... there are really many things I like about them and France. However, this persistent willingness on the part of most European countries now to retreat from aggressive confrontation when it is most needed, is suicide.
Except the French and Euros aren’t. Neither are the British and Irish.
Myth’s a helluva thing.
France has 19 million guns, part of the 60m European guns.
And British and Canadians, Poles and Free Europeans. Not to mention Aussies, Kiwis, Gurkhas, Springboks and Indians and black Caribbeans serving in the British forces.
Hey Defiant, remember that unarmed middle aged Brit who helped those unarmed Americans who saved hundreds on a French train a couple months ago? That’s what human beings do.
Thanks. Apparently not in Paris? LOL!
Absolutely.
Mostly equipped and led by the Americans, of course.
Fox News reports that the alleged attacker, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, drove his car into another car in the parking lot of Vaughan Foods’ parking lot, then entered the business and beheaded 54-year-old Collee Hufford. He was allegedly stabbing a second victim, 43-year-old Traci Johnson, when company owner Mark Vaughan drew the gun he was carrying and shot Nolen.
Yeah, I remember. The brits are where we got it. But, as I recall, he cowered behind a seat until the Americans charged the terrorist, then he gathered the courage to join them. The Brits have gotten some bad habits lately, they just need a little leadership. French too, for that matter.
Oh dear, think you need to learn some real history.
In all fairness that photo A is a time life archive photo of a man crying at the sight of the French colors being marched out of Marseilles to North Africa to save them
Not indicative he was a pussy any more than that he loved his country
I’m sure he’s long dead
Just playing devils advocate for him
A pic of PetaÃn would be a better metaphor for coward
Simone Seguoin was 18 when she joined the resistance
She was wounded and killed a number of Germans
She was a lot braver than most young men today
I don’t think so.
If you think the British and Canadian/Allied forces post D Day were ‘mostly equipped’ and led by America, you are wrong.
Not only am I a Brit, I am a historian and military buff, so I know my facts.
Well, hell, the Battle for the Atlantic didn’t mean a thing then, I guess.
We might as well have stayed home.
Thanks for making my point.
That battle was predominately a British-Canadian battle. In fact the US entry almost lost us the battle, as Adm King’s stupidity saw US ships and men lost in huge numbers until the USN adopted UK-Can tactics.
If you want to debate the Allied war in detail and look at the American, British and Canadian contributions, I would be happy to do so. You might be shocked at just how much the Allied victory relied on Britain and Canada though, as opposed to the notion that America was the primary contributor.
I in no way denigrate the tremendous contributions or enormous sacrifices of our allies. But even Churchill well understood that American manufacturing capabilities and American military participation were THE decisive factors. From the moment we entered the war against Germany, he knew well that ultimate total victory was assured. You’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who takes issue with these obvious facts.
Your comment was ‘mostly equipped and led’. That is simply not true. The UK and Canada were not mostly equipped by the US, and
I assume your comment is related to the thread argument which is about France and Europe, so we are discussing NW Europe 1944-45. Although if we are discussing the global war, again, America did not equip nor clearly ‘lead’ the Allies.
Of course, American entry was a huge factor in Allied victory. My issue is your assertion that American entry meant Britain esp, and Canada, therefore somehow became lesser powers by US entry. That ergo US entry means the US leads the good guys from Dec 41 to Sept 45. That is simply wrong. The Allies and allied victory relied HUGELY on the British: men and material. Not to mention the military and intelligence scope of the war.
It might shock people, both UK and US, how crucial right to war’s close the British importance was. Just how huge the British contribution was in materiel, let alone men. Without British materiel, there would have been no Day, no land campaign, no victory, no liberation of the death camps in the West.........not to mention the allied victories in N Africa, Sicily and Italy.
And the Canadian contribution was also huge, comparable to the UK and US and hugely out of proportion for its population. Again, money, men and material.
Your comment was ‘mostly equipped and led’. That is simply not true. The UK and Canada were not mostly equipped by the US, and for most of the war, the Allied effort was as led by the British as the US, if not more so. Only in July 44 did the US have more men fighting the Axis than the UK.
I assume your comment is related to the thread argument which is about France and Europe, so we are discussing NW Europe 1944-45. Although if we are discussing the global war, again, America did not clearly equip nor clearly ‘lead’ the Allies. The British, Commonwealth and Canadian forces were mostly equipped by their own material. And the US in fact used many British-Canadian inventions and material in all theatres. From Spitfires in the Pacific to Churchill flamethrowers in Europe. Even the P-51 was in origin a British plane.
Of course, American entry was a huge factor in Allied victory. My issue is your assertion that American entry meant Britain esp, and Canada, therefore somehow became lesser powers by US entry. That ergo US entry means the US leads the good guys from Dec 41 to Sept 45. That is simply wrong. The Allies and allied victory relied HUGELY on the British: men and material. Not to mention the military and intelligence scope of the war.
It might shock people, both UK and US, how crucial right to war’s close the British importance was. Just how huge the British contribution was in materiel, let alone men. Without British materiel, there would have been no Day, no land campaign, no victory, no liberation of the death camps in the West.........not to mention the allied victories in N Africa, Sicily and Italy.
And the Canadian contribution was also huge, comparable to the UK and US and hugely out of proportion for its population. Again, money, men and material.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.