Well, since Obama basically ended the Special Relationship with Great Britain, it's not an issue with them anymore.

Mr. Sarkozy might be forgiven for his disdain for visible minorities and his penchant for run-on sentences (see above quote) by virtue of two facts: that he has teh hotzest first lady in the history of the world; and that he was texting someone during an audience with Pope Dracula.

Probably my favourite conservative politician ever.

I'm sure we'll hear from Charles any moment now. As soon as he stops spinning in his grave.

DeGaulle was a petty venal man, who thought that he should have been running things in the European Theater of Operations. He was a bigger pain in the ass, than Montgomery was, to Eisenhower. His stunt of moving into the Presidential Palace while the troops were still marching through Paris, was the height of arrogance. Roosevelt should have shoved this man to a limited role in a combat unit, instead of head of the Free French.

I have the opposite view here. It's not France wanting to join NATO in order to add her forces in defending others....it's so she can call on NATO to fight her battles for her.

It will just end up like every other NATO deployment...100,000 US soldiers, 5000 Brits, 1500 Aussies, 200 Canadians and 1000 assorted from the rest of NATO. The US will provide all the airlift/sealift. Now we'll have to provide additional airlift/sealift for the inevitable French retreat. Probably from Paris as the Muslims get tired of burning cars and start lighting up the Louve.....

He also came into Canada during a tumultuous period in Anglo-Francophone relations and declared, "Vive le Quebec libre!", when Quebec was close to separating from the rest of the country. As though France had anything to do with Quebec apart from the language. Anything to piss of les Anglophones stupide, I guess.

Hey moderator, you liking these d-bag blog-bots pimping their crappy wares in your comment threads?

Hey Faith+1:

Q: How many Canadian troops have been killed in Afghanistan while fighting the goons who aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists?

A: F*ck you.

We also had a large number of combat troops in Korea and Desert Storm, and entered both major theatres of operations in World War II three years ahead of the United States--instead of sitting around waiting for Japanese provocation.

So go piss on the graves of soldiers from some other country you don't know anything about.

Well, NATO split its command structure some time ago; operational/strategic still in Belgium, and the logistics arm (for heavy lifting) in the US.

The French and the Germans have been in cahoots forever.

I'll guess that the Supreme Commander role will soon be filled by a non-US general.

Hopefully, that will be our cue to withdraw from the alliance. I doubt it, though.

About DeGualle, like him or hate him, the guy was a bellwether.

"Doug at Below the Beltway who writes- "So, how soon before we surrender ?""-bj

So says another GWOT enthusiast sitting out the GWOT. "Surrender", indeed! Surrender to Betty Crocker, maybe.

"We also had a large number of combat troops in Korea and Desert Storm, and entered both major theatres of operations in World War II three years ahead of the United States.."-hyperbolist

Canadians are widely considered the finest troops on the allied side during WW1. They also dominated the ace lists.

France made it's decision in 1966. It's too late now. Tell 'em to take a solitary hike.

Hey hyper,

As someone who has actually been in the military, deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan (twice to the first and once to the second), also served in Desert Storm and at least 23 other multi-national NATO and UN missions around the world I'm stating something from a very up front and well informed opinion. I also sat as US Rep to S.H.A.P.E. in Belgium and had more than an up close and personal view of exactly how NATO works.

F*ck You and your inability to read. I was giving credit to the Brits, Canadians and Aussies for bothering to honor the NATO alliance. It was no indictment of their capability either. But you can't argue their numbers are not significant on the scale of deployments. The slam was to the rest of NATO and their candy-ass governments lame participation. Canadian soldiers are a fine bunch but it doesn't mean jack when their government can't be bothered to buy them a transport aircraft and we have to haul them all over.

My point still stands, when it comes to the various alliances the US carries the brunt of the workload.

You mention Desert Storm...yes, lets.

US Deployment: Peak, 697,000
UK: 45,000
Aussies: 1,800
Canada: Peak, 4,500

My point still stands. The NATO governments only provide token representation. It's not the quality of their soldiers but the lame ass token forces they send to what are supposed to be alliance operations.

Argh, a big comment got disappeared because I forgot to paste in my email address...

The gist of it being: yes, we also kicked ass in WW I (including the second-best fighter pilot of all time), and punched way above our weight in WW II on D Day, throughout the Italian campaign, and during the Battle of Britain (as part of the RAF). Vimy Ridge was the deciding battle of the deciding campaign of WW I, and it took only 40,000 Canadians to do what hundreds of thousands of French and British troops could not accomplish (largely due to superior artillery tactics and better unit cohesiveness).

And, I mistakenly thought Faith+1 was ridiculing our armed forces, when he was ridiculing NATO force proportions. 100,000:100 American:Canadian seemed derogatory to me, but I don't particularly care as he wasn't criticizing the capability of any particular servicemember. And I will agree wholeheartedly that for a country with budget surpluses--even during this economic nightmare--we should be able to come up with funds to pay for our own transport vehicles, whether airborne or seafaring. Being able to brag about our military accomplishments in the future requires at least this much. So, apologies to you for going off like that, Faith+1, but it wouldn't have bee the first time that someone here ridiculed the fighting capability of Canadian soldiers.

As for the next head of NATO, it's rumoured to be Peter MacKay, a Conservative Member of Parliament and current Minister of National Defence. There are good and bad things about the guy, but he's been good at managing the message during the last few particularly trying years of the campaign in Afghanistan.

hyper - "So go piss on the graves of soldiers from some other country you don't know anything about."

Thin skin much?!

It's not the quality of their soldiers but the lame ass token forces they send to what are supposed to be alliance operations.

Germans? Drinking?! (It's too much, but I would bet it's far below the level of consumption for your average German.)

The thickness of my skin varies depending on how great or poorly my work day is going. I already apologized to Faith+1, I know it was beyond over the top and unfounded.

Not to mention those that drink far too much in a war zone.
15. Posted by marc

Interesting amalgamation of Church Lady and snitch, there, marc!

BTW, when one hires movers in Germany, its traditional to have a case of bier on hand.

Yeah, I know: fine china versus a second lieutenant or platoon sergeant, but that's all the logic you get.

bryanD - "Interesting amalgamation of Church Lady and snitch, there, marc!"

Wrong on both counts. Talk to the German Parliament, they are the ones playing both parts you sadly attempt to assign to me.

And BTW, when was the last time you've heard of German "movers" operating in a war zone?

Asswipe.