Couple of things in that aren't clear, MSB. France and Germany? France was all in for Libya, Germany said "**** that noise, not interested" what were you trying to say exactly?
Perhaps an overly broad indictment and IIRC the post-WW2 German constitution forbids international military deployments, or at least that was the debate vis-a-vis A-stan.
Still, France is part of the same, single political body as Germany and to claim Germany does not share in the culpability is to say the US could not be held responsible for Arizona declaring war against Mexico. And the same economic motives would bring Germany into alignment with the French excursion.
Also, the French and Indian Wars involved different Indian nations/confederations on each side, some of the Indian tribes were French allies but some were British allies, too. It turned out rather badly for the losers, both White and Red.
No dispute but whether the natives were settling scores against rival tribes or had some preference for one European or the other is at best a secondary concern in their motives. My point is the liberal deliberately constructed his statement to only say "Indian Wars." A lie of omission used in a sad attempt to make GW appear as the sole, white belligerent, thereby proving some pointless point that American genocide against the natives is wholly and completely an American indictment. His beloved French--AGAIN--were as guilty if not more so but he ignores that inconvenient fact. nor were the natives innocent because they were mercenaries, not beseiged freedom fighters nobly defending an ancient, peace-loving, ecologically harmonious civilization from white devils. Sometimes Blackwater is red.
I like you DAT. You're a man of history.
A kindred spirit and well learned.
Sometime I feel like you're the only one who truly understands me.
...
...
Do you like bunnies?
