şükela:  tümü | bugün
  • fransa'nin yenilgilerle dolu savas tarihi. genelde kiclarini ingiliz ve amerikalilar kurtamistir..
    konu hakkinda altiniza ettiricek derece de komedi bir yazi. gece gece dagildim resmen..

    http://www.newsmax.com/…cles/2003/2/13/162810.shtml

    olurda url ilerde gocerse bu saheserden mahrum kalmayalim diye ingilizce'sini pasteleyeyim..

    geoff metcalf
    friday, feb. 14, 2003

    going to war without france is like going deer hunting without your accordion. – donald rumsfeld

    as yet more proof of my credo that “it is not a question of who is right or wrong but what is right or wrong that matters,” i submit tom lantos. the house international relations committee's top demoncrat, rep. tom lantos of california, has said he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude" of paris, berlin and brussels.
    "if it were not for the heroic efforts of america's military, france, germany and belgium today would be soviet socialist republics," lantos noted. "the failure of these three states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt."

    go figure … even tom lantos (like a broken clock) can be right.

    the french! in military matters they are less significant than ed norton, spike lee, sean penn, madonna or rolly polly olly.

    a friend recently sent me an amusing item that prompted some follow-up research. if you go to a search engine like www.google.com and type in the query “french military victories,” guess what you get?

    type in geoff metcalf and you’ll get 9,700. try george bush and you get overwhelmed with 2,570,000. but for “french military victories,” zero, zilch, nada …

    some anonymous cyberwag actually took the time to compile a list. i wish i could attribute it to someone, but i did vet it and edited some comments.

    here it is:

    gallic wars: the french not only lost … they lost to an italian.

    hundred years’ war: although they kinda/sorta mostly lost, they were saved by joan of arc (a female schizophrenic), who by accident created the first rule of french warfare: "france's armies are victorious only when not led by a frenchman."

    italian wars: france became the first and only country in history to lose not just one but two wars against italians.

    wars of religion: france was 0-5-4 against the huguenots.

    thirty years’ war: although not technically a principal, they did manage to get invaded anyway. amusingly, they claim a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring* them.

    war of devolution: tied.

    dutch war: tied.

    war of the augsburg league: lost, claimed tie.

    king william's war: lost, claimed tie.

    french and indian war: lost, claimed tie.

    three ties in a row caused some deluded folks to label the period as the height of french military power.

    war of the spanish succession: lost.

    american in a scribean foreshadow of the future, france claims a win even though the english colonists saw way more action.

    this is eventually known as "de gaulle syndrome."

    it also establishes 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.

    napoleonic wars: lost.

    franco-prussian war: lost.

    world war i: tied and on the way to losing. france was saved by the united states.

    world war ii: lost. conquered french liberated by the united states and britain.

    war in indochina: lost.

    algerian rebellion: lost. the first defeat of a western army by a non-turkic muslim force since the crusades. it gave birth to the first rule of muslim warfare: "we can always beat the french." this rule is identical to the first rules of italian, russian, german, english, dutch, spanish, vietnamese and esquimaux warfare.

    war on terrorism: france has surrendered to germans and muslims just to be safe.
    how many divisions does it take to defend paris? no one knows … it’s never been done.
    there was (and i suspect still is) a wonderful story flying through cyberspace (www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/marineofficer.htm). it tells of a confrontation between a u.s. marine and a french army officer in a px in bosnia.

    why do we need france on our side against saddam and osama?
    a. so the french can show them how to surrender.

    the two soldiers exchange views and insults about france and the usa. eventually the u.s. marine offers to step outside and settle things between the two of them. the french officer issues a final insult and walks away. the kicker to the story is the fact that the marine officer reportedly was a female.

    new york post's steve dunleavy has suggested an economic response to french and german perfidy: a boycott of all things french and german. cool!

    "let's see how fast jacques chirac, the president of the whine and cheese club, and gerhard schroeder, the german leader whose people enjoy a united berlin thanks to president ronald reagan, react to that one," dunleavy wrote.

    how fast? steve, quicker than a minnow can swim a dipper. that fast.
  • her bir kelimesinin dogru oldugu, ozellikle "french revolution: won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also french." maddesi ile beni kahkahaya bogmu$ yazi oldu kendileri. yazarindan en kisa zamanda bir de kahraman belcika'nin sava$ tarihini bekliyoruz. bakalim belcika'dan bruksel lahanasi di$inda neler cikmi$. oy anam anam...ehehe.

    hemmen geciyoruz bkz'lara
    (bkz: dallama fransizlar)
    (bkz: maginot hatti)
    bu da bruksel hukumeti'ne girsin
    (bkz: dallama belcikalilar)
  • google'da "french military victories" yazinca birsey cikmamaktaydi birkac hafta once hatta sormaktaydi:

    "did you mean french military defeats"

    ya da emin degilim buna benzer birseydi.
  • intikam hırsı ve bu yüzden daha da dibe batma, sırf intikam almak için kendisine zarar verecek kararlar alma gibi dallamalıklar ile doludur.
  • fransızlar vietnamlılara da çatır çatır yenilmişlerdir.... hatta vietnamlılar bisikletlerle fransız tanklarını tokatladığı söylenir....

    (bkz: dien bien phu)
  • (bkz: agincourt)
    (bkz: austerlitz)
    (bkz: leipzig)
    (bkz: waterloo)
  • sırf fransa amerika'yla beraber ırak işgaline girmedi diye kuyruk acısıyla yazılmış bir yazının copy paste'iyle değerlendirilen bir ulusun savaş tarihi. şu an afrika'da kaç ülkenin fransızca konuştuğunu, napolyon'un rusyaya kadar dayandığını göz önüne alırsak o kadar da berbat bi tarih olmasa gerek.
  • fransa'dan irak savasina destek surecinde yedigi tokadi hazmedemeyen, amerika bagimsizlik savasi'nda gotlerini kurtaran fransizlari dallama diye nitelendirip kininden sukran gostermeyen amerikan cevreleri tarafindan asagilanan, bu ortamda da eser miktarda tarih bilgisi olan yazarlar tarafindan asilmis sig bir yaziya"saheser" nidalariyla alkis tutulan, kucultulen tarih. (bu arada bunu yapan bunu da yapti: freedom toast/@draconian)

    birinci dunya savasinda 7 vietnam, 33 korfez, 10 trafalgar, 3 canakkale gucundeki verdun cephesini yasamis, ve bu insanlik tarihinin kanimca en kanli savasindan galip cikmis milletin tarihidir. bir cok kilit savasi kaybetmis olabilirler ama balzac, sartre, bizet rousseau, napoleon, monet, renoir, descartes, pasteur, curie, eiffel... gibi kazanimlari olan milletin tarihi.

    en guzelini george orwell demis:

    "who controls the past
    controls the future
    `who controls the present
    controls the past`"
  • sadece esprituel bir baglamda oldugu belli olan bir yaziyi alip -ki bilmem kac yuzyillik bir savas ve millet tarihini yazmak kocaman bir kitap gerektirir, espirinin mahiyeti ve google keywordu bakimindan tabi ki yenilgiler belirtilecek daha cok- sanki tum tarihi etiketlenmis gibi algilayan ve alinan fransiz kisilerin, derin fransiz savas tarihi bilgilerinden daha cok yararlanmak istedigimi "no need to get touchy" diyerek belirtmek ve bu tur bir konuda su yaziyi yazdigim icin* sasirdigimi belirtmek isterim. yoksa bu kismi da mi fransizca yazmak gerekli.

    ayrica (bkz: saglikli bir genelleme icin gerekli denek sayisi)*