Thread: French armed forces

I may be new here but it doesnt take a genius to recognize brutal ignorance when I see it and some of you are full of it.
This is one statement that shows it and most certainly not the only one

If a time comes when we aren't allowed to make fun of the french, I don't want to be alive.:D

. now this is by no means the worst (nothing against you good people but this kind of ignorance cannot go uncorrected). To correct any missconceptions here the French regular army are not up to the same standard as the British, Irish, Swiss or German but what is far better is the thousands of troops that make up the 8 or 9 regiments of the French foreign legion (40%French). The men of the foreign legion are better than any other troops on the planet and will go places no other army would set foot (when the U.S. left Mogadishu and Somalia it was they who went in and beat the place into line). At the top of the world special forces ranking is the legions 2nd R.E.P. (regiment en Parachute) followed closely by ARW and SAS. The unbelievable ability of the legion is reflected in such statments as "march or die" (taken from the old days of the legion) or the grim combat doctrine that once a mission is undertaken it is sacred and must be carried out to the end no matter the cost. The definate advantages of having troops from all across the world and having existed for more than 200 years show whenever they go into action. It is they who defend the E.S.A. launch site. A number of years ago trouble erupted in Congo and hundreds of european citizens became trapped. Immediatley the men of 2 rep were mobilized and rescued all of the people for the loss of just 2 men ( in the middle of a warzone I might add).
Now have I proved my point or should I post more info on the legion and so on.
Oh and why do you slate the French. Certain politicians do for the following reasons. 1: The French backed out of NATO because the U.S. gov was trying to control it, 2: French refused to help in Iraq. I hope that isnt why you's are.

Was the Battle of the Atlantic strategic and reduced the length of WWII. Yes, no question but that is a far cry from that the Svoiets couldn't have done it alone. It might have taken longer (estimated 10 years) but the outcome was not in question

No Russia alone would have lost. By the time Russia would have been able to defeat the Whermacht Hitler would have had nuclear weapons. They were being developed and were more than half way finished when the Brits accidentally blew up the Germans capability to build them thus slowing their nuke program to a finish point well into 1947 (after the war was over). The V2's could have been used to deliver nuclear armement to Moscow. NNow I'm not sure but I think if Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad went up in a puff of smoke that would have taken the wind out of the Russians.
Now of course this whole thing and what it is responding to is all what if's. . ooe see you on my ww2 thread.

If my previous staements offended anyone I am sorry, they are not intended to but take from them the message rather than the brief starting insult to those who overdo the slating of the French.