Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on January 21, 2003, 02:27:33 PM
-
No I mean that. Is there some kind of genetic defect that makes them all cowards? Did the last ours is not to reason why...-genes die out with the Napoleon generation?
But SERIOUSLY wtf happened after 1815? Reading the history of the French army is like reading a f*cking comic book
The history of the French armed forces 1815-present day, a short summary by Steve Hortlund
Surrender, surrender, mutiny and troops refusing to attack, win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while the french troops are refusing to attack, surrender, surrender, create myth of brave resistance fighters, send in foreign legion but surrender anyway, surrender again, send in UN troops, avoid conflict, avoid conflict, send in foregin legion and surrender anyway, avoid conflict, sell arms to mad dictators to avoid conflict, appease mad dictators, blame UN, blame US, veto any war against mad dictators.
HOW THE F*CK CAN YOU STAND TO LOOK YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR YOU bananaS?
Disclaimer: This post is more directed at french policy makers than individual frenchmen. I'm sorry Straffo, and all other french people I know. And I'm not accusing any of you personally to be spineless whimps.
-
Not many fish in that pond Steve.
-
MT, I'm not fishing. Im talking about the French threat to use their VETO in the security counsel against any action against the Iraqis...dont you watch the news?
-
"France announced that no military action against Iraq can be taken until the inspectors work is done. French foreign secretary Dominique de Villepin hinted that France will use its veto power to prevent any resolution or action that would lead to violence/war against the Iraqis."
"Since we can disarm Iraq peacefully, we cannot take the risk to threaten the lives of innocent civilians or soldiers, destabilize the region and further alienate our different cultures"
My translation of swedish news site.
I mean WTF is that? Must not risk the lives of innocent Iraqi soldiers? Must not alienate our cultures?
-
... I was joking, and I knew what precipitated your post.
Sorry to rain on your parade of sorrow.
-
"No I mean that. Is there some kind of genetic defect that makes them all cowards? Did the last ours is not to reason why...-genes die out with the Napoleon generation?
But SERIOUSLY wtf happened after 1815? Reading the history of the French army is like reading a f*cking comic book "
And this has What to do with recent news??? I dont recall hearing him say they surrender.
Shakes head and walks away.
-
Originally posted by Ping
And this has What to do with recent news??? I dont recall hearing him say they surrender.
I'd say the trend is pretty obvious. The French will do anything to avoid getting involved in any kind war. At the same time, they are harbouring some dillusions of grandeur, probably longing back to long lost times when they could actually influence stuff outside their own borders.
The combination of pathetic idiots trying to play with the big boys in international politics and spineless cowards doing anything to avoid war is not a good one.
-
Hmmmm...and Swedens history consists of what?
You present a fine argument of conjecture and what ifs tho.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'd say the trend is pretty obvious. The French will do anything to avoid getting involved in any kind war.
Say, where was Sweden in WW1 and WW2?
-
Damn..have I been trolled? :eek:
-
Isn't France the only country who's articles of surrender are writen in every language? :D
-
Originally posted by Ping
Hmmmm...and Swedens history consists of what?
And this is relevant how? If you want we can start some endless discussion about Swedish military history with its victories and defeats, but at the end of the day we will reach the conclusion that
a) Sweden does not have a permanent seat in the security counsel
b) Sweden is among the relatively few countries that sent military personnel to Afghanistan to aid the Yanks, and
c) Sweden is backing the US war on terror very openly
-
Nice ode to the french ressistance and other french that fought and died on allied side.
But it is all black or white huh?
-
Yes Hort: So is Canada and France, They are just not supporting a war against Iraq without undeniable proof of Guilt.
Damn..I Must Not Get Political
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok Hortlund. For starters, avoiding war is a GOOD thing. Secondly, France is a nuclear power with nuke-subs and aircraft carriers. If they WANTED war they could wage it successfully.
The Great Book of Swedish War Heroes ... now THAT's a thin book. :D
Avoiding war is not always a good thing. Quite on the contrary.
Take a look at how far it got Chamberlain...
When your enemy (as in this case) is an insane dictator equipped with B&C weapons trying desperately to get his hands on N, he should be taken out as soon as possible.
As for France and their weapons...I'm not convinced that France could fight its way out of a wet paper bag, regardless of how many nukes they have.
GScholts...you are norwegian yes? Are there any Norwegian war heroes?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The French will do anything to avoid getting involved in any kind war. At the same time, they are harbouring some dillusions of grandeur, probably longing back to long lost times when they could actually influence stuff outside their own borders.
Surrender, surrender, mutiny and troops refusing to attack, win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while the french troops are refusing to attack, surrender, surrender, create myth of brave resistance fighters, send in foreign legion but surrender anyway, surrender again, send in UN troops, avoid conflict, avoid conflict, send in foregin legion and surrender anyway, avoid conflict, sell arms to mad dictators to avoid conflict, appease mad dictators, blame UN, blame US, veto any war against mad dictators.
That's a superficial and very partial summary of years of French History and Culture; what kind of history books have you read???
:eek:
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Nice ode to the french ressistance and other french that fought and died on allied side.
All five of them?
Or more seriously. You are aware that there were plenty of Frenchmen who fought on the German side too...right? Not only the Waffen SS volounteers, but also the Vichy troops.
As for the French resistance...if you take a closer look at
a) what they actually did during the war, and
b) how many french that claimed after the war that they were part of the resistance,
you will note a similar pattern as in Germany regarding who were nazis and who were not...draw your own conclusions from that.
-
Yeah so what did sweden actualy?
Never heard of them since the viking wars
LOL
-
AHHHH, Now I understand. You must draw conclusions as opposed to using facts.
TROLL ALERT !!!!
-
Originally posted by Ping
AHHHH, Now I understand.
LOL
...lie of the decade.
-
approx. 1,300,000 dead Frenchmen.
That was in WWI. Did you forget that little skirmish Steve?
-
:(
Shuffles away
:(
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
approx. 1,300,000 dead Frenchmen.
That was in WWI. Did you forget that little skirmish Steve?
No its right there between "surrender" and "mutiny and troops refusing to attack, win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while the french troops are refusing to attack"
You HAVE heard about the great mutiny in the French army right?
-
Hmm..I wonder what Chuck Yeager would say about the French Resistance?
Hmm
-
I'm with the French on this one too, going into Iraq will be a big mistake imho. And as for casualties I'd be more concerned about civilians then military.
As for the weapons for mass distruction, what about North Korea? No ones willing to rush into their as they know too well they'll get a very bloody nose.
At the end of the day it's all about oil.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I'm with the French on this one too, going into Iraq will be a big mistake imho. And as for casualties I'd be more concerned about civilians then military.
As for the weapons for mass distruction, what about North Korea? No ones willing to rush into their as they know too well they'll get a very bloody nose.
At the end of the day it's all about oil.
...-Gixer
No, its about doing one thing at a time.
Where is the misstake with taking out Saddam? I dont get it. Here we have a mad dictator willing and able to use B&C and you want to do ...what? Take his weapons away?
-
Hort: perhaps you havent caught the news showing who gave him those weapons and who approved their use against those targets in the past.
In the Criminal Justice system, Doesnt a capital punishment verdict require the Proof and then the approval of the court?
-
well ... I'm calm enougth read that
(I've just got my AH fix for the night I'm still a bit high )
Speaking of genetic pool what do you think of your current king genes ?(or Queen I'm not sure)
Concernining cowardise you obviouly don't know our history :(
Read more books and learn
You have the chance to live in a country were you don't have a war memorial in each town each village and a diddlying abnormal number of graveyard of soldier of a lot of country on you own soil.
-
Fear Not Straffo, we got your back :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
- As a GENERAL rule, avoiding war IS a GOOD thing.
[/b]
Why? Doesnt it depend on why you go to war? (If yes, then the general statement becomes pointless.)
- Chamberlain did NOT avoid war, that's the whole point!
[/b]
My point exactly. No matter how much you try to avoid war by playing nice or using diplomacy, at the end of the it will be the mad dictator sitting across the table who decides whether you will live in peace or have a war.
Saddam is many things, but not insane. Who get to decide who, when and where need to be "taken out". And do they have the right to do so.
[/b]
Kinda like arguing that Hitler was not insane. Whether that might be technically true or false is irrelevant. Saddam is a murdering, torturing f*cking mad man who has used chemical weapons against his own population, as well as his enemis (Iran). Whether you like it or not, this guy is as insane as they come, right up there with Hitler, Stalin, Pop Pot and Mao.
Right now I trust the judgement of the US regarding who deserves to be taken out. As for what right they have, you better believe they have the right to kill that f*ckhead (Saddam). In fact, I see it more as an obligation. Saddam MUST be removed before he can cause any more harm.
You forget who you are talking about here. He is funding, aiding and arming various terrorist organisations. He has B&C, he is looking for N. If we would just take the French approach and put our head in the sand, it is just a matter of time before he (and thus also alot of terrorist organizations) start using NBC in their "holy war" against the western world.
- Ask the British/Argentineans and Israel/Arab neighbors what they think of French weaponry.
[/b]
But I was talking about French soldiers.
- Yes I'm Norwegian. I could name whole squadrons and merchant fleets of them. And before you mention Karl Gustav XII, The Great Swedish Warrior King, whom you Swedes have named nearly ALL your weapons after just remember; WE killed him in the battle for Fredriksten fortress. :D
Actually, pretty much all the current research indicates it was a Swedish officer that killed him. The bullet that killed the king was a button from a Swedish officers uniform.
As for the whole squadrons and merchant fleets of Norwegian heroes, I take that answer as a "no".
-
But I was talking about French soldiers.
You'd better speak about politics than soldier.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Fear Not Straffo, we got your back :)
Thanks Ping GScholz Gixer MT and all the other
I'm of to bed now I've to work tomorrow and if I stay I'll start be pissed and very offensive.
-
straffo, from my first post:
Disclaimer: This post is more directed at french policy makers than individual frenchmen. I'm sorry Straffo, and all other french people I know. And I'm not accusing any of you personally to be spineless whimps.
-
Lots of people here seem to think that the History of French arms post 1815 is limited to the first and second world war..But alas..it gets worse as you look at the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries.
I dont think that has anything to do with blind support for american aggression in Iraq though..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not many fish in that pond Steve.
Guess with stinky enough bait anything is possible. :confused:
-
What do you know Pongo , Yur from BC :p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Guess with stinky enough bait anything is possible. :confused:
MT, this is no damn bait. I have told you that TWICE in this thread already. wtf happened to your reading comprehension? And why did you say "I was joking" after the first time you accused me of trolling, if you come back and do it again?
-
Hands Hortlund a sedative.
-
Disclaimer: This post is more directed at french policy makers than individual frenchmen. I'm sorry Straffo, and all other french people I know. And I'm not accusing any of you personally to be spineless whimps.
Loser
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
straffo, from my first post:
Disclaimer: This post is more directed at french policy makers than individual frenchmen. I'm sorry Straffo, and all other french people I know. And I'm not accusing any of you personally to be spineless whimps.
For your first post I agree.
But when you write "french soldier" it's cover the "soldat de seconde classe" to the "général 5 étoiles" so I read it as a general comment.
As a french citizen I support my elected goverment even if I disagree with it's policy (that's why I'm supposed to do no ?).
By chance concerning Iraq we agree ... and if it happen that the US Army fail to properly calibrate their weapon and bomb Ryad or Pyongyan to oblivion I'll be the first to support them.
But it's not likely to happen.
-
Clarification.
I see that my short version of the French history has confused some people. Allow me to walk you through it.
This is what I wrote
Surrender, surrender, mutiny and troops refusing to attack, win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while the french troops are refusing to attack, surrender, surrender, create myth of brave resistance fighters, send in foreign legion but surrender anyway, surrender again, send in UN troops, avoid conflict, avoid conflict, send in foregin legion and surrender anyway, avoid conflict, sell arms to mad dictators to avoid conflict, appease mad dictators, blame UN, blame US, veto any war against mad dictators.
--Details---
Surrender -1815 End of the Napoleon war
surrender -1872 End of the German-French war
mutiny and troops refusing to attack -1916 French attacks at Verdun halted because troops refuse to attack.
win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while french troops are refusing to attack. After the mutiny, the entire French army was put on defensive duty only. Meanwhile, the Brittish took over the offensive duties, which resulted in massive loss of British life while the French troops were recovering from the horrors of being in a war. Then of cource the US too had to come and bail France out.
Surrender-1940, not much to say about that
Surrender -Vichy troops surrender to allies in 1942.
Create myth of brave resistance fighters -As I said earlier. If you compare what the french resistance actually did during the war, and the number of people who claimed to be part of the resistance after the war, you have to seriously question what all those hundreds of thousands of partisans were doing. You might also want to compare those actions to the activities of the Polish, Yugoslavian and Russian partisans.
NOTE here I forgot to insert a Surrender when Germany attacked Vichy in 1942.
send in foreign legion but surrender anyway -1954, Dien bien Phu. After the war lots of Germans joined the legion. This became a problem for the French that was solved at Dien bien Phu where 80-90% of the German legionnares died. (the last "reinforcements" were paradropped into the surrounded and doomed garrisson, of these "reinforcements" 95% were Germans.
surrender again -Algeirs 1960 if I remember correctly. (Although it should have been "send in foreign legion but surrender anyway. Here a unit from the Foreign Legion actually had a mutiny when they were ordered to surrender by the French government. The legionnares refused, and the situation became an embarrassement for the French government (as if they could BE more embarrassing) At the end the situation was solved, but the Legion was forbidden from entering French soil again. The unit was then stationed on Corsica (sp). The unit was the REP.
send in UN troops -First attempt from UN to secure Israel Egypt borders ended miserably in 1967. French initiative who have always worked against Israel (Syria is old French colony with close ties)
avoid conflict -This one should have been before "surrender again" above. It is regarding the 1956 "suez crisis"
avoid conflict -US asking French for help with the Lebanon situation in 1982, turned down naturally.
send in foregin legion and surrender anyway -Rwanda (cant remember the year)
avoid conflict -Kongo civil war where the Belgians had to get involved because the French didnt want to.
sell arms to mad dictators to avoid conflict -Iran to avoid getting caught in the same situation as the US after the revolution 1979
appease mad dictators, -Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan
blame UN, blame US -When weapons sold to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan were starting to pop up in various wars against Israel and/or terror attacks. Also applies to 1991 war.
veto any war against mad dictators -latest achievement
NOTE Upon going through this I realize I have forgot several highlights of French feat of arms. Such as:
Vietnam (avoid conflict)
Kongo (avoid conflict)
Korea (avoid conflict)
Bosnia (blame US/UN, despite being HUGE part of what caused the war by recognizing Bosnia first of all nations)
Kosovo (blame US/UN despite being huge reason behind war... same reason as above)
Liberia (avoid conflict)
Somalia (avoid conflict)
etc etc etc
The list can be made very long...
-
Hortland, why do you use such a inaccurate and dishonorable troll? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hortland, why do you use such a inaccurate and dishonorable troll? :confused:
What is inaccurate?
And dishonourable? Give me a break.
-
Someone from Sweden ridiculing the French for not being capable of putting up a serious fight in war is like a housewife who went to a self-defence workshop and starts making jokes of a cagefighter who went KO in his last match.
Moron
-
Surrender -1815 End of the Napoleon war
how many surrended before ?
surrender -1872 End of the German-French war
yep we lost
mutiny and troops refusing to attack -1916 French attacks at Verdun halted because troops refuse to attack.
it was 1917
win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while french troops are refusing to attack. After the mutiny, the entire French army was put on defensive duty only. Meanwhile, the Brittish took over the offensive duties, which resulted in massive loss of British life while the French troops were recovering from the horrors of being in a war. Then of cource the US too had to come and bail France out.
completly false and roadkill
Surrender-1940, not much to say about that
yes nothing to add
SurrenderVichy troops surrender to allies in 1942.
smart move IMO
Create myth of brave resistance fighters Asd I said earlier. If you compare what the frenc resistance actually did during the war, and the number of people who claimed to be part of the resistannce after the war, you have to seriously question what all those hundreds of thousands of partisans were doing. You might also want to compare those actions to the activities of the Polish, Yugoslavian and Russian partisans.
BS
NOTE here I forgot to insert a Surrender when Germany attacked Vichy in 1942.
BS I'm learning something I was ignoring ...
send in foreign legion but surrender anyway -1954, Dien bie Phu. After the war lots of Germans joined the legion. This became a problem for the French that was solved at dien bien phu where 80-90% of the German legionnares died. (the last "reinforcements" were paradropped into the surrounded and doomed garrisson, of these "reinforcements" 95% were Germans.
BS again
surrender again Algeirs 1960 if I remember correctly
BS again ever heard of the word referendum ?
send in UN troops First attempt from UN to secure Israel Egypt borders ended miserably in 1967. French initiative who have always worked against Israel (Syria is old
French colony with close ties)
BS again were did they get their planes and even pilot agains t Egypt ?
avoid conflict This one should have been before "surrender again" above. It is regarding the 1956 "suez crisis"
Ask USA and USSR about Suez and don't forget that brit and Israel were involved too
avoid conflict US asking French for help with the Lebanon situation in 1982, turned down naturally.
we just have some soldier killed about 200 nothing to speak about
send in foregin legion and surrender anyway Rwanda (cant remember the year)
BS
avoid conflict Kongo civil war where the Belgians had to get involved because the French didnt want to.
BS
sell arms to mad dictators to avoid conflict Iran to avoid getting caught in the same situation as the US after the revolution 1979
BS
appease mad dictators, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan
BS
blame UN, blame US When weapons sold to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan were starting to pop up in various wars against Israel and/or terror attacks. Also applies to 1991 war.
BS
veto any war against mad dictators latest achievement
NOTE Upon going through this I realize I have forgot several highlights of French feat of arms. Such as:
Vietnam (avoid conflict)
BS
Kongo (avoid conflict)
BS btw you can be proud of the swedish attitude in congo
Korea (avoid conflict)
BS french troop were in
Bosnia (blame US/UN, despite being HUGE part of what caused the war by recognizing Bosnia first of all nations)
BS
Kosovo (blame US/UN despite being huge reason behind war... same reason as above)
BS
Liberia (avoid conflict)
BS not involved
Somalia (avoid conflict)
BS it was better than being ridiculised like others
You'd better have to buy some book tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Someone from Sweden ridiculing the French for not being capable of putting up a serious fight in war is like a housewife who went to a self-defence workshop and starts making jokes of a cagefighter who went KO in his last match.
Moron
Ah, what razor sharp wit. You Sir should definitively work as a comedian.
First I dont see what Sweden has to do with this at all.
Second, feel free to list the wars we participated in and how/why you feel we should feel embarrased about it.
Third, So tell me what the Dutch contributed to the history of the world besides coffe shops and red light districts.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You'd better have to buy some book tomorrow.
I'll do that if you'll bother to expand some on your replies other than "BS".
I would like you to expand on all your "BS"-replies actually. From the look of things, you might need that book more than I do.
But if you feel that it is too much to ask, then please focus on Dien Bien Phu, Algeirs (and particualrily the mutiny of the Legionnares) and Bosnia, particualrily how your line of reasoning goes when it comes to the French unilateral desicion to recognize Bosnia as an independent state, and thus forcing the EU into similar action.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"Actually, pretty much all the current research indicates it was a Swedish officer that killed him. The bullet that killed the king was a button from a Swedish officers uniform."
- LOL! What does that say about the Swedish soldier!
"As for the whole squadrons and merchant fleets of Norwegian heroes, I take that answer as a "no"."
Ditt elgrĉvhĝltryne! You're such an incredible prettythanghole disrespecting all those men! Remember you're just a car trip away, and have an internet-trail as long as Bill Gates! I'll find you you little cheese!
elgrĉvhĝltryne -does that really mean moose-ass-face?
As for the rest, try to cool down a bit. Personal threats via a bulletin board is...not something HTC really appreciates.
So what are you saying? That all Norwegian merchantmen during ww2 are the true heroes of the war? Not the soldiers who fought and died, not the airmen, no..the Merchant marine sailors?
Something you could think about though is the number of Norwegian volounteers in the Waffen SS compared to the number of Norwegian soldiers that actually fought against the Germans. If you do a comparrisson of KIA/WIA numbers, you will note that more Norwegians fought and died for the Germans than did for Norway. Do you want to comment on that?
-
As you wish,
one and two rolled into one nice compact answer: If you ask what Sweden has to do with it you clearly don't grasp the concept of only judging someone else when you have earned the right to do so.
And for point three, well I could quote the famous Dutch seafaring, conquering, fighting and exploring past, or on a more recent note, all our disproportionally numerous contributions to peacekeeping missions (granted, not always succesful) in the recent decades but I gladly settle for the coffeeshops and the red light districts.
-
Originally posted by Thud
If you ask what Sweden has to do with it you clearly don't grasp the concept of only judging someone else when you have earned the right to do so.
Ahh I see. And how pray tell does one earn the right to critizise someone else?
-
My BS reply mean :
I'm tired I'm going to bed I wont waste my precious sleep time to answer.
Btw why to you suddently want reduce the discution to Bosnia ,Dien Bien Phu , and Alger ?
I prefer writing about Korea , Suez and Napoleonian campaign and next we will discuss of Bosnia and so on :)
Simply without any documentation nor any web search :
Bosnia : it was because some other European country recognized Croatia first (as far as I know)
Dien Bien Phu : so there was no pole nor french in the legion at this time ?
Alger : this period is a mess and there is a lot of things still not known and it was not only the Légion.
-
Originally posted by straffo
My BS reply mean :
I'm tired I'm going to bed I wont waste my precious sleep time to answer.
Btw why to you suddently want reduce the discution to Bosnia ,Dien Bien Phu , and Alger ?
I prefer writing about Korea , Suez and Napoleonian campaign and next we will discuss of Bosnia and so on :)
Simply without any documentation nor any web search :
Bosnia : it was because some other European country recognized Croatia first (as far as I know)
Dien Bien Phu : so there was no pole nor french in the legion at this time ?
Alger : this period is a mess and there is a lot of things still not known and it was not only the Légion.
hehe, the reason I wanted to focus on those three topics is because there I remember the answers farily well.
Germany recognized Croatia and Croatia broke free. Then France recognized Bosnia=Serbia panicked=hello Bosnian civil war.
Dien Bien Phu. Yes, there were lots of other nationalities in the legion at the time. But right after ww2 *alot* of germans (and notably, mostly ex-Waffen SS sought their way into the legion. In the early 50ies this became a problem when the French started to realize they had alot of warcrime suspects in the legion. At the same time, they could not kick them out. AND they were afraid of mutiny since something like 70% of the Legion was German at the time. SO off to Dien Bien Phu they went and died. After that, the German percentage was back to "normal" again.
Looking forwards to your answers tomorrow. Will be interesting to discuss the Napoleonic wars :)
(Unless some norwegian guy drives over here tonight and kicks my bellybutton and destroys my computer because he feels I showed disrespect to some Norwegian sailors)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
- They were ALL volunteers. They didn't have to face German u-boats in the cold Atlantic with little or no chance of survival if they got torpedoed. They transported 40% of all goods from USA to England during WWII, and thousands didn't survive. That makes them heroes in my book. "not the airmen" ??? Didn't I say "squadrons AND merchant fleets"? And yes the commandoes and resistance fighters (whom my grandparents joined, kinda eerie listening to my grandma describing how to fieldstrip a Stengun).
[/b]
Ok, before this gets too carried away, I probably should tell you that I have family in Norway (two brothers and one sister) so I'm not really a Norwegian-hater.
As for the sailors, Im not doubting their bravery. I have been on a (normal) ship at sea in semi-bad weather, and that was bad enough for me. To have submarines out there trying to kill you on top of that would probably have been to much for my nerves.
I think I can say this: All nations in ww2 had individuals that gave incredible feats of personal courage. I find it pointless to argue over the individual courage of the individual soldier, airman, sailor etc. Because...it varies from person to person regardless of nationality. (Then there might be some nations where you have to look harder than others to find these heroic soldiers hehe ;) )
- I don't blame them. The Nazis occupied Norway, and their propaganda was very effective.
Something YOU could think about is the number of supposedly neutral Swedes that volunteered for the Waffen-SS. Do you want to comment on that?
Sure, 250 -750 Swedes joined the Waffen SS. You could add a couple of thousands that volounteered to fight on the Finnish side, and there you have the Swedes who fought on the German side. Back then USSR was the big enemy, and that is probably the reason why they joined the Waffen SS. I think the same can be said about the norwegians and danes, and dutch and belgian and french troops that joined the Waffen SS. These soldiers were put in units that only fought on the eastern front, because they mostly joined to fight the commies.
But if you are looking to pin blame on Sweden during ww2, you should look in other areas (hint: ball bearings, wood, steel, transit traffic, Swedish destroyers escorting German merchantmen, etc etc)
-
Yeah Hortlund. No only is this thread stupid in the extreme (criticising the national character of a whole nation?), you're on very shaky ground with regard to criticising other nations for their collaboration with the Nazis.
I wonder how many allied soliders died at the hands of Swedish steel sold to the Germans...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah Hortlund. No only is this thread stupid in the extreme (criticising the national character of a whole nation?), you're on very shaky ground with regard to criticising other nations for their collaboration with the Nazis.
I wonder how many allied soliders died at the hands of Swedish steel sold to the Germans...
Uh, am I doing that? I have *never* critisised any nation for "collaborating with the Germans". I thought I was critisising the French for their stance on Iraq...
Anyway, it you want to go into that argument, we can. I probably should tell you that in my opinion, Sweden can not be considered to have been neutral during the war. A more correct description would be a passive German ally. So Im not sure how much argument you will find from me. On the other hand I can direct you to some pretty interesting sources (US intel reports from the war) describing how Swedish ball bearing deliveries kept the German industry going after the Schweinfurt raids.
Another interesting tidbit is that the Swedish exports to Germany only halted in NOVEMBER 1944, after severe diplomatic pressure from the US (threats of siezing all Swedish companies assets AND embargo on strategic materials (oil and rubber))
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
MT, this is no damn bait. I have told you that TWICE in this thread already. wtf happened to your reading comprehension? And why did you say "I was joking" after the first time you accused me of trolling, if you come back and do it again?
Damn you are good!
I bow to your trolling excellence O great one.
-
Troll or not, I'm with France on this one.
Non à la guerre.
Daniel
-
well Steve, at least they FOUGHT and lost instead of bending over for the enemy.
Europe: Documents Reveal Sweden's Ties To Nazi Gold
By Anthony Georgieff
Copenhagen, 27 January 1997 (RFE/RL) - Sweden has joined Switzerland in a process of demystifying financial dealings with Nazi Germany by releasing documents casting doubt on positions of neutrality during the Second World War.
Midway through World War II, both countries, with the full knowledge of their governments and central bank directors, ignored warnings from the Allies about the nature of the gold and other assets they were buying from Germany and continued the trade until the end of the war. As late as 1944, the Swedish National Bank ordered its Swiss financial partners to melt gold bars so they could be stamped with a Swedish insignia to conceal their origin.
These gold bars did not originate only in precious metal expropriated from Jews. In many instances, they had a much more macabre history: they were melted gold teeth, wedding rings and golden glass frames taken from Jews at Auschwitz and other death camps.
Swiss historian Christoph Graf says Switzerland and Sweden were "very much in the same boat" when it came to financial dealings with Nazi Germany, only "the proportions were different."
In fact, documents released recently show that immediately after the war, Switzerland and Sweden had confidential talks to "compare notes" so as not to contradict each other in the face of war-crimes tribunals and possible banking investigations by the Allies.
According to historians, the "dirty trade" encompassed three areas:
The freezing of pre-war accounts held by Jews. By 1940, Sweden outlawed the opening of accounts for non-residents and many Jews mainly from neighbouring countries, including the three Baltic Republic, found they didn't have access to their money.
The purchase of gold that was clearly stolen.
Functioning as a fiscal safe haven for Nazis.
It has been no secret that the wartime Social Democratic government in Sweden -- Sweden has been ruled by the Social Democrats since the 1930s but for the short-lived conservative government of Carl Bildt in the early 1990s -- traded with Hitler's Germany and that Swedish steel manufacturers provided metal for Germany's war industry. Nominally, the country was neutral, and unlike neighbors Norway and Denmark, it was not occupied by Germany. Throughout the war, Stockholm did not turn away Jewish refugees. For example, almost all of Denmark's Jews were transported by Danish fishermen and resistance activists to safety across the sound to Malmoe.
According to documents recently cited in Swedish reports, the family of Raoul Wallenberg, the wartime Swedish diplomat in Budapest who saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews and later died in Russia, is revealed to have participated in the trade of Nazi Germany's wartime gold. The documents suggest the Wallenberg family was sympathetic to the Germans and thought they would win the war.
In 1944, after Raoul Wallenberg had already helped many Jewish families in Hungary, another senior member of the clan, Jacob Wallenberg, attempted to sell state bonds for Nazi gold. However, the Wallenberg family never succeeded in buying the gold. Sweden's National Bank denied the family's request, because, by then it suspected the gold had been stolen.
It is unclear precisely how much gold Sweden had obtained during the war. Estimates vary from "at least" 20,000 kilos to about 34,000 kilos. In the early 1950s, some gold was sent back to its rightful owners. But declassified archives now show that "many tons" of gold are still unaccounted for.
27-01-97
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1997/01/F.RU.970127141934.html
-
Cool... bring on the veto and stand up against the lunacy of Bush.
What balls!
-
Hey Hortland I'm with yah (GASP!)
Fargin froggies... I can't freakin believe we gave those wussies a seat in the security council, handed them a key to the nuclear clubhouse and then gave 'em 20-30 billion bucks to replant the freakin toejamholes they call winerys.
For thanks, they've been screwin with us behind our backs non-stop ever since.
Shoulda made France a British protecorate and annexed French East Canada after the war.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
hehe, the reason I wanted to focus on those three topics is because there I remember the answers farily well.
Germany recognized Croatia and Croatia broke free. Then France recognized Bosnia=Serbia panicked=hello Bosnian civil war.
Your explanation is a bit short
Dien Bien Phu. Yes, there were lots of other nationalities in the legion at the time. But right after ww2 *alot* of germans (and notably, mostly ex-Waffen SS sought their way into the legion. In the early 50ies this became a problem when the French started to realize they had alot of warcrime suspects in the legion. At the same time, they could not kick them out. AND they were afraid of mutiny since something like 70% of the Legion was German at the time. SO off to Dien Bien Phu they went and died. After that, the German percentage was back to "normal" again.
it was never more than 25% as far as I know.
Looking forwards to your answers tomorrow. Will be interesting to discuss the Napoleonic wars :)
(Unless some norwegian guy drives over here tonight and kicks my bellybutton and destroys my computer because he feels I showed disrespect to some Norwegian sailors)
going for a 1 week mission now I reply more
concerning the french in the Waffen SS how do you coun the "malgres-nous" ? as french or german ?.
-
wtf is right with em??
:D
-
I wonder how this rather vitriolic criticism of the french comes about?
Imagine being critised for having no backbone because the French won't be bow beaten into a decision?
Do what we want or you are nothing but a bunch of cowards!
No its right there between "surrender" and "mutiny and troops refusing to attack, win anyway due to massive help from allies that are forced to fight for france while the french troops are refusing to attack"
Even worse, being slandered by a swede...who are well known for sharing the same ground as the french on the western front in 1917.
Of course the French army mutiny was brought on primarily after the Nivelle Offensive (16 April- 9th May 1917) where the French suffered 189,000 causalties, over 40,000 on the first day (I forget the swedish causalties - But I would imagine it was something in the region of...oh...say....none). The army mutinied after the ingrates demanded not to be bleed white anymore...imagine the cowardice not wanting to be slaughtered!!! The meer cheek of the buggers.
After all the commonwealth, who bleed the same ground as the French (and the swedes obviously) forced in keeping the treaty which the British freely signed with those buggers the French!
Lucky the swedes were there to keep the whole thing together during 1914-1918 or we'd all be serving in the SS!
and I don't even want to mention WW2!!!!
Tronsky
Allied WW1 causalties
killed wounded
France 1,357,800 4,266,000
British Empire 908,371 2,090,212
(incl ANZACS, Canada)
Russia 1,700,000 4,950,000
Italy 462,391 953,886
USA 50,585 205,690
Belgium 13,715 44,686
Rumania 335,706 120,000
Portugal 7,222 13,751
Serbia 45,000 133,148
Japan 300 907
Sweden ? ?
-
tst tst people.....hortland is aloud to his opinion.
I am french(but from Canada)....you win some ya lose some....every country has its history....and France has been there for a long long time.....but to blame a countries policies cause they don't compare to yours is pointless.
France will work thru the UN....not thru the US....Canada will do the same.....so will russia....call my countries policies toejamless one's is pointless....
WW2 first big german offensive was against the french..they lost...ok....if it was sweden..it woulda been the same.
Every country thought Hitler WOULD NOT ATTACK...but he did(every country made the same mistake...only it was France that was stuck right beside germany and they where the first to get a bleedin nose)...no matter which country was besides them...germany woulda gave em a bleedin nose...including the US...they struck HARD an FAST
now that you dug up some French surrenders...try digging up some French victories....you will see that they have some impressive one's....
your argument is pointless.....
oh btw....France gave the US its most potent symbol(the lady statue...liberty)...France helped the US BECOME the USA....France spread its language around the world...to Become the SECOND most spoken language(and no its not spanish...but French)
now what has Sweden History done that compares to France's History....
-
What about the "Libya Incident".
Karaya2
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
What about the "Libya Incident".
Karaya2
They flexed their sovereignty. We may not agree and it may not have helped our cause, but what the hell... it's their country and their air space.
-
The descriptive "apologist" was invented for the French.
-
Hey Hortlund, should we begin to discuss the Danish-Swedish wars (of which they were many)?
It is true that the late wars were won by Sweden. But many battles and wars were lost as well - surrender, surender, defeat, defeat, white flag, surrender.
Every nation has its history of won and lost wars. If you choose to only see what France lost, you're blind to what they've won.
Why do you have a Bernadotte as your kind? Mayhap the failings and successes of France has had resyults that can be seen and felt in Sweden today?
In WWII, France got beat pretty quickly. Still, the Vichy troops fought quite bravely against the allies - until all resistance was futile. The Free French troops fought *very well* once they were competently lead. And the French resistance wasn't bad at all.
Not to mention WWI. The French dug in with the rest.
It is also worth noting that they've done quite well in modern time with regards to putting in troops to protect their citizens - Africa is a good example. They fared poorly in Vietnam - much like the Americans.
And their approach to handling terrorists is quick and brutal. Unlike Sweden which is riddled with PCness, the French aren't afraid to come across as racist brutes. They have a superiority complex, but as a people they're more resilient than the Swedes, who've stayed out of every conflict since the early 1800's.
And quite a few countries sent troops to Afghanistan. Even Denmark sent F-16's and AWACS to assist the yanks. Hell, we even lost people there. So don't be so quick to condemn the French who, when all is said and done, have been involved in more wars and conflict in modern time than has Sweden.
The perpertuated myth that French people are cowards is erroneous. Many great adventurers are French. They pioneered scuba diving and have a culture that produces great rock climbers. I've climbed with some and I can tell you this; they have more balls than I do. If you made soldiers outta these individuals, they wouldn't be cowards hiding behind 'neutrality'.
-
On a sidenote, I think Frances reasons are economic and perhaps they've done some business deals they don't want the world to know about.
But the US behaves the same way, just as all other nations - protect the interest of the country.
Also the Norwegians blew up the German heavy water plant in Norway.
The Swedes sold quality steel and other goods to Nazi Germany.
If you attack the people of another country and the country itself, you better have swept you own back yard first. Swedens past isn't all roses - just as Denmark has a past full of blemishes.
It should also be noted that the SS Wiking division consisted largely of personell from Norway, Denmark and Sweden. More Swedes died fighting for the Nazis than against - again, numbers can be used both ways.
Don't trust a government that uses force to sterilize parts of its population. Don't trust one that believes in eugenics.
Now, if you will, attack Denmark. I'll make little attempt at trying to cover up the notorious 'achievements' of this country.
I find it amusing that you tell people to cool down after you yourself has just called their country gutless, spineless bunch of losers. Mayhap you would be well advised to tone down your own emotional attacks before telling others - you prompted their comments.
Feel free to hate me now :).
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Why do you have a Bernadotte as your kind? Mayhap the failings and successes of France has had resyults that can be seen and felt in Sweden today?
hehe, so do you want to know what is Really funny?
After the 1809 war against Russia (when Sweden lost Finland), the (completely incapable) King was de-throned, and the parliament was debating over who should be elected new king. The eyes fell upon Bernadotte because he was a brilliant general in the French army. So the Parliament asked him if he wanted to be king of Sweden, and restore the nations borders. In other words, he was chosen because he was a great military leader, and he was chosen because it was believed that he would be the one to restore Swedens borders.
So what happened? He quickly surrendered to the Russians...
Damn french idiots.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
well Steve, at least they FOUGHT and lost instead of bending over for the enemy.
What part of "I think Sweden was a passive German ally" did you not understand?
-
Originally posted by StSanta
The Swedes sold quality steel and other goods to Nazi Germany.
If you attack the people of another country and the country itself, you better have swept you own back yard first. Swedens past isn't all roses - just as Denmark has a past full of blemishes.
It should also be noted that the SS Wiking division consisted largely of personell from Norway, Denmark and Sweden. More Swedes died fighting for the Nazis than against - again, numbers can be used both ways.
Don't trust a government that uses force to sterilize parts of its population. Don't trust one that believes in eugenics.
Now, if you will, attack Denmark. I'll make little attempt at trying to cover up the notorious 'achievements' of this country.
I find it amusing that you tell people to cool down after you yourself has just called their country gutless, spineless bunch of losers. Mayhap you would be well advised to tone down your own emotional attacks before telling others - you prompted their comments.
Feel free to hate me now :).
Feel free to read my posts in the future. If my argument is that Sweden was a passive German ally, you have to understand that arguments like "Sweden sold iron ore to Germany" or "Swedish volounteers fought and died in the Waffen SS wont impress me that much.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Hey Hortlund, should we begin to discuss the Danish-Swedish wars (of which they were many)?
Sure, if you want. I think just looking at a map over present day Denmark and Sweden compared to a map over 14th century Denmark/Sweden, 16th century Denmark/Sweden and 18th century Denmark/Sweden will speak volumes about our past wars...
-
Surrender -1815 End of the Napoleon war
surrender -1872 End of the German-French war
Hortlund, you can insert the Crimean 1854-55 war in between, when French were the majority in expedtion corps that sieged Sevastopol. You can hardly call that "covardice".
JFYI: in that war soldiers wounded by Russian bayonets were carried to the cemetary without visiting hospital.
At the same time British attack on Petropavlovsk was repelled by a handfull of handicapped grey-haired warriors.
Conserning 1809 war. Bernadotte probably faced many things that were considered "impossible" but implemented by Russians, like the cavalry raid across the frozen Botnic gulf.
I admit that I know much less about that war then you do, because this minor conflict (from Russian POV) was a great episode of your history.
-
Im just sorry frenchy had to read that crap
(the first post and other nonsensical slander)
and the other frenchys also. I appologise for my countryman sincerly.
-
oops
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Conserning 1809 war. Bernadotte probably faced many things that were considered "impossible" but implemented by Russians, like the cavalry raid across the frozen Botnic gulf.
I admit that I know much less about that war then you do, because this minor conflict (from Russian POV) was a great episode of your history.
Yeah, I know alot about that war. For some reason, I keep wanting to learn more about it, even though it is one of the greatest military tragedies in Swedish history.
Short version:
Soviets attacked 1809. Swedish forces outnumbered something like 8-1. Swedish defensive plan had two major components.
1) Main army does a fighting withdrawal north west towards the Swedish border.
2) Fortress Sveaborg (outside Helsinki) holds at any cost. Sveaborg was the largest fortress ever built in Sweden. It was, for its time, truly impossible to conquer, it lay on an island in the inlet to Helsinki.
The idea was that when the summer arrived, reinforcements from Sweden would land in southern Finland under the protection of the guns of Sveaborg. Meanwhile, the Russian army would be exhausted from fighting and marching in Finland in the winter (think 1939). The fresh Swedish forces would then attack north and cut off the Russians.
The outcome.
The Swedish army began an organized fighting withdrawal north, inflicting serious losses on the Russian army in several encounters. But the army never "took a stand" in accordance with the war plan.
Then, out of the blue, and for no reason whatsoever, the commander (I will not take his name in my mouth) of Fort Sveaborg surrendered.
Ooops.
No one really knows why he did that. He had plenty of food and ammo. The fortress had a full crew of several thousand men, and the Russian forces posed no threat to the fortress.
Anyway, the king Gustav IV lost his nerve, and instead of trying to salvage the situation, he ordered the army to retreat back into Sweden. Meanwhile the Russians stayed in winter quarters in various towns and cities. When spring came the Swedish army was exhausted and with poor morale. The Russians attacked into Swedish soil, and the King surrendered.
-
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.
-
Thanks for the information, I'll try to look for Russian POV on the Net in the milhistory forums and echoes.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Soviets attacked 1809.
This is beautiful.
So far what I have found (a first link in yandex.ru search) is:
"Soviets" :D occupied Finland in 1808. In August 1808 in a battle at Kuortane lake Russian army (Kamensky) defeated Swedes (Klingspor). Sveaborg was taken on May, 3, 1808. In Feb, 1809, Russian troops crossed Botnic gulf and were 100km from Stokholm. GustavIV was overthrown and according to peace treaty Finland and Aland islands were given to Russia.
Another relation to France: this war started according to Tilsit agreements with Napoleon because Sweden didn't join "continental blockade" of Britain.
-
Heh
I think the French were the cause of every war in the last 450 years, and they lost them all too. The last time they won a war they were so pissed they won that they betrayed the woman who lead them to the enemy.
But I'm biased :)
-
king of sweden is a frenchman
-
Originally posted by whgates3
king of sweden is a frenchman
No, he is swedish.
Unless you want to argue that since his ancestor was French and moved to Sweden in 1810-something, he is not really Swedish. But if you want to take that route then there are no americans at all. Nor Swedes really, since this nation was populated after the last ice age approx 11 000 yrs ago.
-
Originally posted by straffo
it was never more than 25% as far as I know.
Straffo, it varied from unit to unit. If I remember correctly, the parachutists regiment (REP?) were the ones with the abnormal high proportion of Germans.
-
ok king of sweden is swedish...
...but ace of base sux!
-
Those french a**holes have done it again.
-
and so what ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, they've slapped us around a few times ... the French never did that thank God, or we'd all be speaking French here. :D
Let me get this straight - if the US was given the choice to permit France overfly its territory in return for which, the US might suffer terrorist attacks on its soil and the very probably loss of American life for aiding the French, the US would have just gone ahead and done so?
From a country that breaks trade agreements with its closest neighbor and trading partner...
-
Hortlund whats up with ya? I always thought u where a mature and nice person. Why u are insulting the French so heavy?
Why did u brought up this topic? Only to upset the French or to discuss historical things? If it is the last one i would suggest to calm down and use another kind of language.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Hortlund whats up with ya? I always thought u where a mature and nice person. Why u are insulting the French so heavy?
It is because of their attitude in the Iraq question. Well, it is more than that really, there are alot of reasons. I dont know if you want me to go back to the Versaille treaty and start listing all their failings from that date, but I could if you want.
Right now though, it is their spineless cowardly stance in the Iraq issue. It would be ok if they were just acting cowardly on their own. I mean no one would care if they decided to sit this war out too...in fact I think everyone would understand them if they did.
But now they are threatening to use thier veto in the security counsel (why on earth they ever got a permanent seat there is beyond me..."yeah, we must not forget to give a permanent seat to the nation that surrendered within a month, then fought on both sides of the war, and finally ended up as one of the "victorious" nations of ww2 simply because they were considered a great nation before the war.")
Now, that means that the French have moved from being "annoying, obnoxious, pathetic" to "a part of the problem".
That is more serious than you might realize. See when your opponent is supporting various terrorist organizations, and when said terrorist organizations have declared war on the civilized world, and when your opponent is holding chemical and biological weapons, and there is a clear and present danger that those B&C weapons might find their way to the terrorists, then if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
France is not only a part of the problem, they are making the problem worse with their "If we close our eyes really hard maybe the bad things will go away"-attitude.
-
now I'm really pissed
-
Hortlund: Your TROLL is provokative, RUDE, and although it has its points, its Stupid alltogether.
The French have had their sorry side of warfare, and seem to remember. Sure, they did perhaps not always perform too well, with low sides like the fall of France in WW2, or upright the Stupid opposition to the British in N-Africa in WW2. BTW the Vichy French DID fight .....against the allied.
They had their moments too, - A minor french force drove the Italians back in WW2, and who held the ground at Verdun in WWI at the costs of hundreds of thousands but the French?
War is bad, the French remember it, and you as a soft cushioned Swede should take a deep breath before Speaking like this!
Now turning to the Swedes, one can perhaps learn what can be done with less war and more politics....
What were the Swedes doing in WW2? Gently siding with the Germans to avoid occupation, then slowly shifting to the other side. Not of much use with their neighbours, who fought like devils till they fell, and the remainders who escaped continuing until the end of the war? Of all people, you have no right to to send any pompous and arrogant words to the Norwegians!
Those Norwegians were many fighting against Swedish shipped Steel, and Sweedish guns loaded with Sweadish explosives, using perhaps, Swedish guns themselves in the Progress. Swedish, protecting their pink underbellies, dared not cut the bonds with Germany until right before the end. They let themselves never be persuaded to rally with the Allies, - think for a moment what difference that would have made as early as 1942/43. Hmm. Maybe they were afraid, or not competent in their own defenses?
Oh, and somebody in the thread must have messed up kings. It is the Danish Queens Husbond who is a Frenchman.
-
Angus... what does the history of Sweden have to do with the current topic?
Honestly, in this thread I've had something like 5 replies all listing the major shortcomings of Swedish warfare/politics. That is all fine and well, BUT SWEDEN IS NOT THE NATION THREATENING TO BLOCK ALL ACTION AGAINST IRAQ IN THE UN.
If you want we can all start a new thread and lable it something like "Why Sweden almost joined the war on the German side in 1941" or "Yes Sweden lost alot of wars during the past 1000 years"...that is all fine by me.
BUT right now France is the problem, not Sweden.
And Angus, the current Swedish king is of French heritage. In 1815, a French General, Bernadotte became king of Sweden.
-
Hortlund
For one thing, It's France AND Germany.
For the second, I couldn't resist taking a pot shot at you for relating the political status of the French on this issue to their military performance in other wars long ago.
And finally, isn't that Blix guy a Swede? And btw, how is Swedish public opinion in this topic, and how would it be if they knew they had to send Sweadish troops over there?
Don't throw too much rocks in a glasshouse.
-
Well, we did send troops to Afghanistan, but I dont think anyone noticed... Public opinion is the same as always. Liberal media and various lefties gnashing thier teeth/wrenching their hands over the threat of war. Average guy on the street thinks it would be a good idea to get rid of Saddam and all other terrorists too for that matter.
Blix is Swedish...point being?
-
Well, public opinion is public opinion. Not perfect, it is still the cornerstone of the idea of Democracy.
Now Germany and France seperated themselves from the others in the Iraq issue, thereby also agreeing with the public opinion in the most of Europe, not just their own countries. Maybe I am wrong already, for public opinion can change in a day:D
About Blix. He is the guy who asked for more time. Swedish guy goes along fine with the French there. :D
Now if Blix actually FINDS something, I am sure the French and Germans will immediately saddle on again.
You may think I am one of those "Liberal media and various lefties ", but I'm not. Hehe, hell, I sure know those archetypes though.
Points of mine though:
1.Let Blix finish his job. We should not simply start an invasion like that regardless of his work.
2. Watchit, Iraq will try to stall everything into the worst season to deal with them, - the summer
3. Iraq should pay for shooting down unmanned recce planes. Are they not a part of the surveillance system BTW?
Maybe Saddam should be subjected to a point system (negative perks). Shoot down a recce...2 perks. Refuse admittance, 2 perks. Stalling weapons inspectors, 1 perk. Traces of stuff found, 1 perk. Blix finds stuff, 100 perks!!!!
Allies move in at 30 perks. Wonder what his status is by now...
-
Problem is that the war has to start pretty soon. After April the weather gets too bad in Iraq for any kind of offensive.
The alternative would be to give Saddam and the terrorists another 7-8 months to do whatever they are trying to do
=not good.
-
If France's position is for you "spineless cowardice" then here's another coward to add to your list. I couldn't be in better company.
Just for the record, about 96% of spaniards are against the war in Irak if the UN doesn't support it.
Daniel
-
Steve I didn't expected someone like you to be that receptive to US propaganda.
In fact I didn't expected to see a European to be so lacking of "esprit critique"
-
The alternative would be to give Saddam and the terrorists another 7-8 months to do whatever they are trying to do
Even the CIA admits there is no link between Saddam and Al Queda. So who are these 'terrorists' you speak of?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Even the CIA admits there is no link between Saddam and Al Queda. So who are these 'terrorists' you speak of?
Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqxcsa Brigades (dont quote me on the spelling though)
And one of the first things you should learn about intelligence operations is that what they know, and what we know is not neccesarily the same thing...and not only that, they want to keep it that way. AND this is good. Because we dont need to know what they know, because when we know, the terrorists know it too.
And Dowding...
There are other ways than the direct contacts you know.
Example #1:
Iraq supports Chechen rebels
Al Queida recruits from Chechen rebels
Example #2:
Iraq supports Hamas
Al Queida recruits from Hamas
Example #3:
Iraq supports Hamas
Hamas cooperates with Egyptian terrorist group (dont remember name)
Egyptian terrorist group cooperates with Al Queida
Lets just acknowledge the fact that the CIA knows a he**ofalot more about these terrorist groups than we do and leave it at that.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Steve I didn't expected someone like you to be that receptive to US propaganda.
In fact I didn't expected to see a European to be so lacking of "esprit critique"
ahh yes, espirit critique... but you have to realize straffo, that it is not good to critizise just because you think its chique or whatever. This is a real issue with real dangers. And it is not as if the whole problem will go away if we ignore it for a while.
Straffo, please tell me which of the following is US propaganda.
1) Iraq has used Chemical weapons against civilian Kurds and against Iran.
2) Iraq had alot of Biological and Chemical weapons in 1991. These weapons have not been accounted for by the weapon inspectors.
3) Iraq supports Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Accsxa Brigades directly.
4) Iraq have been trying to manufacture/get their hands on nuclear weapons since the mid 80:s.
5) Iraq has killed tens of thousands of its own civilians.
6) Iraqi security forces use torture against Iraqi citizens.
7) Since 1991 Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of an embargo that is in place because Saddam refuses to let the UN disarm him.
8) Iraq had repeatedly stated that the state of Israel must be destroyed.
9) Iraq has repeatedly violated previous UN resolutions.
-
Didn't Libya invade Chad in the 1980's and it was opposed by French Forces. Like 80,000 Libyans vs 3,000 French and the French spanked the hell out of them...........
-
1) Iraq has used Chemical weapons against civilian Kurds and against Iran.
None was interested before GWB noticed he needed a war like his father
2) Iraq had alot of Biological and Chemical weapons in 1991. These weapons have not been accounted for by the weapon inspectors.
What about North Korea?
3) Iraq supports Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Accsxa Brigades directly.
Sure and Ryad never done anything like that.
4) Iraq have been trying to manufacture/get their hands on nuclear weapons since the mid 80:s.
They are not alone (hint : North K...)
5) Iraq has killed tens of thousands of its own civilians.
Neither Kim Il Jung ...
6) Iraqi security forces use torture against Iraqi citizens.
Kim Il Jung won't ever use this kind of horrible methods .
7) Since 1991 Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of an embargo that is in place because Saddam refuses to let the UN disarm him.
Will the UN protect Iraq in case of a real disarmement ?
I dont' think so.
8) Iraq had repeatedly stated that the state of Israel must be destroyed.
Yep and why is it wrong ?
In fact Iraq is not the only country stating that.
9) Iraq has repeatedly violated previous UN resolutions.
Israel won't ever do such an illegal act.
I'm not a member of Saddam fan's club but I find this Double Standard idiot.
-
Straffo.
So if I understand your post correctly you are saying this:
"Nothing of that is US propaganda, in fact all the points you listed are true. However, some other nations are also evil."
Well then Straffo. I have to ask you. What is the US propaganda that I have fallen for?
-
Straffo, I have to return to some of your answers that I find highly questionable.
Riyadh ( =Saudi government) has never directly supported for Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations.
The UN disarmament of Iraq is with regards to BC. They can keep their conventional weapons. Now I ask you what the he** do you mean when you say that Iraq will be unprotected without these weapons. Does that mean that you think BC is ok?
Why is it wrong that Iraq wants to destroy Israel? It is wrong because it would mean that millions of jews would be murdered...again. Frankly I thought you would find that at least a bit wrong...apparently not.
-
1 - ok hortland...we know your for war against Irak....cool....thats your OPINION
2 - you hate the french....not cause it differs from you opinion....but you really hate em
3 - who the diddly are you to tell what the french can or cannot do
4 - Canada...Russia...Spain....Ge rmany...France...NONE of the above are puppets to the US policies of interest....THEY WILL WORK THRU THE UNITED NATIONS.....not the swedish hortland opinion of what should be done
6 - in my book unless your a soldier gettin ready to fight for your OPINION....go diddly yourself.....your opinion means nothing but hot air :D
7 - now if we would talk about something really scary....NORTH KOREA....who openly SAY that they DO have WMD...send some popsicle bellybutton swedish soldiers to go kick there ass...can't wait to see that
-
I guess it was too complicated to list them in numerical order SLO?
(Hint: 5 comes after 4 and before 6)
-
1) Iraq has used Chemical weapons against civilian Kurds and against Iran.
Britain fully intended to use chemical weapons back in 1919, but lacked a delivery system Turkey has repeatedly bombed, shot and repressed the Kurds in their territory. As have the Syrians. It's a regional tradition.
2) Iraq had alot of Biological and Chemical weapons in 1991. These weapons have not been accounted for by the weapon inspectors.
Weapons supplied by the US and her allies. Rummy Rumsfeld was involved in the supply of Anthrax technology transfer. 95% of these weapons were destroyed during the previoius weapons inspections. We are now looking for the last 5%.
3) Iraq supports Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Accsxa Brigades directly.
I'd like to see more evidence of this. Got any links? I'm lazy. :)
4) Iraq have been trying to manufacture/get their hands on nuclear weapons since the mid 80:s.
Not really - they were given them by the US and other NATO member states to fight the Iranians. We know Saddam has them, because we gave them him!
5) Iraq has killed tens of thousands of its own civilians.
So has North Korea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So has half the world. The world is generally a nasty place.
6) Iraqi security forces use torture against Iraqi citizens.
So does Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally. So does Kuwait. So does North Korea. So does China. So does most of the world.
7) Since 1991 Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of an embargo that is in place because Saddam refuses to let the UN disarm him.
Sanctions have gifted Saddam a stick with which to beat the West. He can tell his people the West are responsible for their continued suffering and garner further anti-Western sentiment. They have been counter-productive at best.
8) Iraq had repeatedly stated that the state of Israel must be destroyed.
Hardly a reason to start a war. I don't want to see any British troops dead in the name of Israel.
9) Iraq has repeatedly violated previous UN resolutions.
Israel is currently in violation of numerous UN resolutions dating back decades. Yet this is not only overlooked, currently the US supplies Israel with $60 billion a year in military aid. Let's not pretend UN resolutions have any relevance - more like selective relevance.
-
wtf does N Korea have to do with things?
So both Iraq and N Korea are evil f*cking nations, does that mean we should ignore both of them because we cant prove which one is more evil? Brilliant logic.
The reasons 1-9 combined is the reason why Iraq must be neutralized. You will not find that 1-9 combination in any other nation.
And Dowding. No one has given Iraq any nuclear weapons. At least read my posts before you reply to them.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Straffo.
So if I understand your post correctly you are saying this:
"Nothing of that is US propaganda, in fact all the points you listed are true. However, some other nations are also evil."
Well then Straffo. I have to ask you. What is the US propaganda that I have fallen for?
The propaganda saying : Iraq is the most evil (as they will start a war against ...).
Sorry to say Iraq is one of the evil and far from being the most dangerous it's only the most visible on US network.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Straffo, I have to return to some of your answers that I find highly questionable.
Riyadh ( =Saudi government) has never directly supported for Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations.
The UN disarmament of Iraq is with regards to BC. They can keep their conventional weapons. Now I ask you what the he** do you mean when you say that Iraq will be unprotected without these weapons. Does that mean that you think BC is ok?
Why is it wrong that Iraq wants to destroy Israel? It is wrong because it would mean that millions of jews would be murdered...again. Frankly I thought you would find that at least a bit wrong...apparently not.
Being hypocrite like the Saoudian can protect you from US anger ?
They created organisations founding terrorism for me they are guilty of giving money (not directly I agree) to terrorism so I make no difference between Saoudian and Iraq.
About Isreal ?
It's what happen to all invader : they get assimilated by local population or destroyed and as they won't be assimilated ... sadly it's destiny is written :(
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Britain fully intended to use chemical weapons back in 1919, but lacked a delivery system Turkey has repeatedly bombed, shot and repressed the Kurds in their territory. As have the Syrians. It's a regional tradition.
[/b]
No, it is not a regional tradition to gas civilians. In fact, Iraq is the only nation on this planet who has been doing that since you know who in the 40:s.
Weapons supplied by the US and her allies. Rummy Rumsfeld was involved in the supply of Anthrax technology transfer. 95% of these weapons were destroyed during the previoius weapons inspections. We are now looking for the last 5%.
[/b]
Im sorry but does this change the fact that Iraq has these weapons and that they are unaccounted for?
I'd like to see more evidence of this. Got any links? I'm lazy. :)
[/b]
You should know better than to rely on internet sources Dowding. Anyway, I am lazy too, but this is common knowledge heck even Tareq Aziz has openly stated that it is so.
Not really - they were given them by the US and other NATO member states to fight the Iranians. We know Saddam has them, because we gave them him!
[/b]
Nukes? Yeah right...
So has North Korea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So has half the world. The world is generally a nasty place.
...
So does Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally. So does Kuwait. So does North Korea. So does China. So does most of the world.
[/b]
We dont. And the fact that other nations does it too doesnt really justify it.
Sanctions have gifted Saddam a stick with which to beat the West. He can tell his people the West are responsible for their continued suffering and garner further anti-Western sentiment. They have been counter-productive at best.
[/b]
yeah, some stick to beat us with...the only ones who really (pretend that they) care are the French/varios newspaper reporters/other liberal types and they are just looking for an excuse to avoid this war.
Israel is currently in violation of numerous UN resolutions dating back decades. Yet this is not only overlooked, currently the US supplies Israel with $60 billion a year in military aid. Let's not pretend UN resolutions have any relevance - more like selective relevance.
As I said, only Iraq has the 1-9 combo. And I know that you hate Israel and all, but at the end of the day, Israel is the democracy, and Iraq is the country led by a mad dictator...think about that.
-
We will need to separate the use of facts as propaganda, from the invention of fact for the same scope, btw...
Originally posted by Hortlund
1) Iraq has used Chemical weapons against civilian Kurds and against Iran.
Yes, We have TV images (and I have a direct witness, an Iranian former soldier), so it is true, no propaganda origined.
2) Iraq had alot of Biological and Chemical weapons in 1991. These weapons have not been accounted for by the weapon inspectors.
We have proves (they used it with kurds) of the possesion of chemical weapons, about the biological ones (worst, much worst and dangerous even of the nukes), there are no proves aside the US declarations and/or suspects.
3) Iraq supports Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Accsxa Brigades directly.
Maybe they offer training camps, but there are no direct proves of the government involvement (Will be the same as to say that because a terrorist cell was found in UK, the UK is supporting terrorists).
BTW, I guess it's probable.
4) Iraq have been trying to manufacture/get their hands on nuclear weapons since the mid 80:s.
Like almost 50% of the countries in the world.
5) Iraq has killed tens of thousands of its own civilians.
I guess yes, but seem a little generic (we can say the same of a lot of our allies).
6) Iraqi security forces use torture against Iraqi citizens.
Probable, you can be surprised how few country dont use torture in this world.
7) Since 1991 Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of an embargo that is in place because Saddam refuses to let the UN disarm him.
This statement it's what urged me to answer, the western countries have enforced the enbargo, so they are responsable of the civilian losses, it's like a burglar that say: " if I shoot you it's your responsability, because you did'nt obey my orders".
8) Iraq had repeatedly stated that the state of Israel must be destroyed.
And a lot of other states have declared the same, like a lot of other states have declared that Iraq must be destroyed.
9) Iraq has repeatedly violated previous UN resolutions.
Like a lot of other "friendly" nations, beginning with Israel (well, in the past, at least).
All this 9 points can be easly (maybe with the exception of point 1) applied to many many nations in the world.
So what?
We are going to wage war to the entire non-western world??
Maybe this is the real objective.
(electronic voice)
"Your resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"
The marketborg.
:D
-
So both Iraq and N Korea are evil f*cking nations, does that mean we should ignore both of them because we cant prove which one is more evil? Brilliant logic.
Where did you get that ridiculous assertion from? I'd say it's your logic that is faulty. North Korea is the biggest threat. Tackle that first.
Your nine points of wisdom can be applied to North Korea, except for the Israel one. Frankly, in terms of global stability and world peace, North Korea is by the far greater threat. They have nuclear reactors ready to go to produce the material for weapons, they have the beginnings of ICBM technology.
They have links with Yemen, the No.1 holiday destination for your aspiring Islamic nutcase terrorists. They have sent arms there. Going by your previous logic regarding guilt by association, it quite possible for nuclear material to reach Yemen and then be distributed to whichever terrorist group you could name.
How do you think a nation develops nuclear weapons? Is it through physics textbooks? Through a degree in physics? I studied alot of advanced nuclear physics as part of my course. I know how nuclear weapons work, I understand many of the problems associated with nuclear weapons development. Could I build one? Of course not. There so much ancilliary knowledge required, it is a huge undertaking. So where does a country like Iraq get that kind of specialist knowledge? Through unscrupulous Western experts, broke Russian scientists etc of course.
The main focus of the UN WMD expert's search is chemical and biological weapons - they believe these are the weapons Saddam had, because we gave them him. Nuclear weapons are only what he actively desires.
Take out Saddam - but let's sort out North Korea first.
And I know that you hate Israel and all
lol I don't hate Israel - I support its existance as State, just as I support the Palestinian rights to a self-determined state of some kind. I just detest their current administration, and Sharon in particular. He's not fit to be a leader of any country given his glorious past.
You on the other hand, would defend them to the hilt on any issue - even if they started gassing Palestinians and pushing their still warm bodies into gas chambers.
-
My guess: the hot French girl Hortlund's been eyeing for a month told him to get lost. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Take out Saddam - but let's sort out North Korea first.
Im sorry but it has to be the other way around since the US army is deploying to the Iraqi border right now.
Has N Korea used chemical weapons on other nations btw?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Has N Korea used chemical weapons on other nations btw?
Who cares?
We can use some South Korean soldier dressed in NK uniform and claim they used it.
(Hint hint look the past ;) )
-
Saddam is a dictator...we all agree. He's done a lot of baaad things in the past...we all agree.
BUT his links with Islamic terrorism are not based on facts. Let us not be fooled. This war is about oil. US feels that while Saudi Arabia keeps a 'friendly' face, this land is financing a lot of terrorist organisations. It is more than probable than, within years, the oil tap from S.A. shuts down towards the west. So US is is looking for an (easy) alternative...who said Iraq?
Add to this that by doing this Bush Jr has the opportunity to complete his father's unfinished work...but I'm sure this doesn't enter into the equation, politicians are known for doing only logical things...
Getting control of the Iraqi oil resources wouldn't be a bad move for western countries, and I'm sure Europe would benefit from it too. I just don't feel comfortable with the method employed. Maybe i'm too naive or idealistic.
Another point to consider is that this war will only fuel (no pun intended) the western hate by islam-bidding people. Price could be very expensive at the long term.
I am not anti-US at all. I visited enough US graveyards in Normandy and in the Ardennes to know what we owe to this country. But I like to believe that I've kept a free mind. This war would be, IMO, another sad episode in a part of the world where USA played the wizard-apprentice and showed not much common sense during the last decades...
And while we are discussing about this, NK feels free to sneer at the world again and begins to grow new claws (now THIS is one topic which needs action soon IMO).
Anyway, war in Iraq won't start before all the Saddam opponent parties agree on a successor...and discussions don't seem to evolve much at this time.
BTW, Hortlund, you're clueless, and your ideas have a disturbing and unpleasant scent. I don't know the swedish law, but I'm astonished a judge is allowed to explain publicly his political opinions at such length...you should be a bit more careful. Somebody pissed off enough could bring a serious blow to your promising career...
-
Originally posted by deSelys
BUT his links with Islamic terrorism are not based on facts.
So the fact that the Iraqi government pays $ 10 000 to every suicide bomber should not be taken as an example of support for terrorism?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
BTW, Hortlund, you're clueless, and your ideas have a disturbing and unpleasant scent. I don't know the swedish law, but I'm astonished a judge is allowed to explain publicly his political opinions at such length...you should be a bit more careful. Somebody pissed off enough could bring a serious blow to your promising career...
wtf is that supposed to mean? I mean seriously?
As for my culelessness, you are more than welcome to argue my points instead of posting some veiled threat.
-
.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
hehe, so do you want to know what is Really funny?
After the 1809 war against Russia (when Sweden lost Finland), the (completely incapable) King was de-throned, and the parliament was debating over who should be elected new king. The eyes fell upon Bernadotte because he was a brilliant general in the French army. So the Parliament asked him if he wanted to be king of Sweden, and restore the nations borders. In other words, he was chosen because he was a great military leader, and he was chosen because it was believed that he would be the one to restore Swedens borders.
So what happened? He quickly surrendered to the Russians...
Damn french idiots.
And the french are idiots? lmfao
-
wtf is wrong with the French?
well...
they're French...
and probably mad because Napa valley is making better wine...
:p
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
well...
they're French...
and probably mad because Napa valley is making better wine...
:p
Naaa, dont worry, they are used to have others do better wine!
:D
-
lol!
-
The most evil country is China; why isn't the US prosecuting war against them?
-
one thing at a time my Northern friend without an army ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So, Hortlund, you're a judge? And you don't have any problems with the legality of invading Iraq without UN sanction?
Well, Im not sure how to reply to this one actually. If you do a search on these boards on my username and/or the keywords "warcrimes" or "international law", you will find that I have posted plenty on the subject.
Let me just avoid a tricky question and just say that I think the US has the right to self defence (preemptive or not) against Iraq.
-
lol Wlfgng
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, Im not sure how to reply to this one actually. If you do a search on these boards on my username and/or the keywords "warcrimes" or "international law", you will find that I have posted plenty on the subject.
Let me just avoid a tricky question and just say that I think the US has the right to self defence (preemptive or not) against Iraq.
I didn't know they attacked us
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I didn't know they attacked us
Maybe you should look up the word "preemptive".
Anyway, it can be argued that since Iraq is supporting terrorist organizations they are in fact engaged in such activities that would justify a self defence attack.
OR it can be argued that the inability on the behalf of Iraq to follow conventions on chemical and bactereological warfare poses such a threat to the US as to motivate a self defence attack.
Take your pick.
-
Better attack the rest of the world too then
-
Hort, in this way ANY preemptive attack can be justified.
(with bubba voice): "Hey, I am gonna attack them, they have an Army, and I bet they are THINKING to attack us, even Nostradamus wrote it !!"
Maybe it's time for GWB to hire some Oracle?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Naso
Hort, in this way ANY preemptive attack can be justified.
Congratulations Naso, you have just understood the fundamentals of international law.
Basically the big countries (US, USSR, China) get to do whatever they want and ignore international law as they please. While the small countries find out that international law is a great excuse for the big countries to declare war on them, should the need ever arise.
-
I think Miss Cleo is available...
-
BTW, did you noticed that a lot of people opposing or having doubt about a war are from nations that know what really mean to have a war fought on their land?
Have memory of the slaughter of innocents?
And the survival of the guilty ones? (with the exception, in some cases, of the big bosses)
There is people down there in your bomb sight, people on the other side of your guns, and the big, bad ones will be hiding in full confort refuges, while the normal, inocent people will die.
At the end, when Saddam will be gone, WHO you think will have the bless of our great, right nations?
The man of the next door?
Naa, the second row mr. S.O.B., ready to jump in the winner chariot.
Dirty.
-
We have been trolled
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Congratulations Naso, you have just understood the fundamentals of international law.
Thanks, Master.
:rolleyes:
Your arrogance is getting worse and worse.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Naso
BTW, did you noticed that a lot of people opposing or having doubt about a war are from nations that know what really mean to have a war fought on their land?
Have memory of the slaughter of innocents?
Naso, most of the anti war people I see are young kids and old politicians.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Thanks, Master.
Your arrogance is getting worse and worse.
?
Im just saying that that is how international law works in practice.
Take the US war on Kosovo. A more complete violation of international law will be very hard to find. What were the consequences of this illegal war for the US and for Serbia?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
?
Im just saying that that is how international law works in practice.
Take the US war on Kosovo. A more complete violation of international law will be very hard to find. What were the consequences of this illegal war for the US and for Serbia?
We went there to prevent ethnic cleansing and support int law. That's like saying stopping the gassing of the jews was a violation of int law.
You can't be this ignorant, therefore, you are trolling
BTW, did any Muslims ever thank us for that?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
We went there to prevent ethnic cleansing and support int law. That's like saying stopping the gassing of the jews was a violation of int law.
You can't be this ignorant, therefore, you are trolling
BTW, did any Muslims ever thank us for that?
I wonder who is the ignorant one when it comes to international law. What I'm saying about the Kosovo war is 100% true. And no, I dont think any moslems thanked the US for that one. I do know that Al Queida has a large presence in Albania and Kosovo though.
(And no, the war in Kosovo was nothing like invading Germany to stop the Holocaust. And no, it was not to prevent ethnical cleansing the US went in. You have alot to learn young Padawan)
-
What was it about then. I suppose malosivic was an imaginary character that didn't get arrested on war crimes? Ethnic cleansing has to be intervined. If they had done it another way you could have an argument. But they basically had a witch hunt on the muslims. Say what you want, but we did the right thing. Which may be the case with Iraq, but the problem is we don't have the support yet. I still can't believe we can't pinpoint where saddam is and just eliminate him.
And stop trolling
-
Question 1)
Under what circumstances does a memeber nation of the UN have the right to intervene in other nations domestic policies?
Question 2)
Under what circumstances does a member nation of the UN have the right to intervene in other nations domestic policies without the prior approval of the security counsel?
Question 3)
Under international law, what is the definition of ethnical cleansing?
Question 4)
Is international law applicable on a domestic situation.
Question 5)
Under what circimstances is a member nation of the UN allowed to use force against another member nation.
Question 6)
Under the UN charter, what is the correct sequence of events if a nation and/or the UN wants to take action against a member state for human rights violations?
Ponder over these questions for a while if you want. If you want to try to answer them, go ahead. The answer to why the war in Kosovo was illegal can be found in those answers.
-
So you are saying a war against Iraq is illegal?
And if so, what's the problem with a french veto?
BTW, question # 3 makes it legal
And stop trolling
-
OK, it's been 5 min, where are you? Momma make you sit down and eat?
-
This is from a Marine in Bosnia._
Note the signature, it's the best part,_ but read it last:
A funny thing happened to me yesterday at Camp Bondsteel (Bosnia): A French army officer walked up to me in the PX, and told me he thought we (Americans) were a bunch of cowboys and were going to provoke a war._ He said if such a thing happens, we wouldn't be able to count on the support of
_France. I told him that it didn't surprise me._ Since we had come to France's _rescue in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War, their ingratitude and jealousy was due to surface at some point in the near future anyway. That is why France is a third-rate military power with a socialist economy and a bunch of
limp wrists for soldiers. I additionally told him that America, being a nation of deeds and action, not words, would do whatever it had to do, and France's support was only for show anyway._ Just like in ALL NATO exercises, the US would_ shoulder 85%
of the burden, as evidenced by the fact that the French officer was shopping in the American PX, and not the other way around. He began to get belligerent at that point , and I told him if he would like to, I would meet him outside in front of the Burger King
and thrash him senseless in front of the entire Multi-National Brigade East, thus demonstrating that even the smallest American had more fight in him than_ the average Frenchman. He called me a barbarian cowboy and walked away in a huff._
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Signed,
_Mary Beth Johnson LtCol, USMC
-
It was really Morgan Fairchild, yeah, that's the ticket!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So you are saying a war against Iraq is illegal?
And if so, what's the problem with a french veto?
BTW, question # 3 makes it legal
And stop trolling
In what way does #3 make it legal? In particular with regards to #2 and #5?
And no, Im not saying that a war against Iraq is illegal. In fact, Im pretty sure that the last security counsel resolution on Iraq (I think its 1441, not sure though) combined with one of the earlier resolutions on Iraq can be interpreted as a green light for military action if the Iraqis try to hide stuff from the UN inspectors.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
This is from a Marine in Bosnia._
France. I told him that it didn't surprise me._ Since we had come to France's _rescue in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War, their ingratitude and jealousy was due to surface at some point in the near future anyway. That is why France is a third-rate military power with a socialist economy and a bunch of
limp wrists for soldiers.
now thats funny
WW1 you did NOT win that war......
WW2 you did not win that war......
Vietnam you LOST that 1......
a Third-rate military power who can bring BIG bellybutton bombs to your front door
nuff said...
now i'll go find a good story about a chicken watermelon american GI or popsicle bellybutton marine:eek:
bet i can find some:D
-
C'mon slow, we are bashing France, not US.
So, in this case, it's allowed by the international law even to use the "we saved your sorry a...." biological weapon.
:D
-
Originally posted by SLO
Vietnam you LOST that 1......
Actually, "we" did not lose Vietnam.
S. Vietnam was still not invaded by the North until all US forces were pulled out.
-SW
-
How do you lose something, if you weren't there when it was "lost"?
-SW
-
did we not go to veit nam after the frenchys got there butts kicked there?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
How do you lose something, if you weren't there when it was "lost"?
-SW
Congrats your in a club of one: the people who think the Vietnam war was won
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... you finally get to the truth with this statement. No offense, but you sound more like a drug lawyer than a judge. :D
Just out of curiosity...why would I not take offense at that comment? No offense but you sound like a retarded child molester...
see my point?
-
Hortlund: "So both Iraq and N Korea are evil f*cking nations"
Do you really put the evil stamp on a whole nation? I guess they even eat their babies then?
Seriously.......what a simpleton you are. Ok All axis people in WW2 were evil. Even the russian folks were evil. Now we have countless millions of evil people, such as Koreans, Iraqis, Iranians, etc. etc. Better start bombing soon, before more evil ones arrive!
Anyway, wanted to bring up another point. How many of you said to yourselves at the end of the 1991 gulf war :
"there's gonna be another one"?
IMHO the big mistake back then was to leave Iraq alone. In a matter of days this would have been all over.
Instead, Hussein could play the same game as Hitler did with the Germans before WW2, i.e. play on statements like "We were not a defeated nation", "our misfortune is the fault of the others" etc.
But alas, the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history :(
So, the western nations are in a bit of a doo-doo. Saddam is dangerous, and there's gonna be trouble. Just a question when and how rather than IF. I guess everybody that ever wrote in this thread can agree about that. The main dispute here is the "How" thing, and Hotlunds immature and insulting trolls aren't adding anything to answer that question.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hortlund: "So both Iraq and N Korea are evil f*cking nations"
Do you really put the evil stamp on a whole nation? I guess they even eat their babies then?
Seriously.......what a simpleton you are. Ok All axis people in WW2 were evil. Even the russian folks were evil. Now we have countless millions of evil people, such as Koreans, Iraqis, Iranians, etc. etc. Better start bombing soon, before more evil ones arrive!
Noo, not at all, you missunderstand. I am such a simpleton who does not understand these things. Just because we can see images of Iraqi people dancing in the streets celebrating the death of another jewish child in a suicide attack or claiming that the US deserved 9-11 with a smile, that doesnt mean a thing. THAT DOESNT MAKE THEM EVIL.
There is not a single Iraqi or N Korean citizen that is "evil" they are all just missunderstood/forced to act mean/oppressed by their government.
But it would be wrong to say that the government and the government agencies in these nations are evil too. The soldiers gassing Kurdish civilians or the poor agents torturing some dissident are just doing their job/are just missunderstood/are forced to act mean by the evil dictator.
But in fact, not even Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il are evil. They are just missunderstood/in need of love/looking for attention.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Technically a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly eighter ...
Incorrect, this is urban myth stemming from Bee characteristics being fed into an aircraft aerodynamics modelling system that didn't account for relative air viscosity, surface area of the bee, and air sacs within the bee.
-
Originally posted by rc51
did we not go to veit nam after the frenchys got there butts kicked there?
no
-
Originally posted by Naso
C'mon slow, we are bashing France, not US.
So, in this case, it's allowed by the international law even to use the "we saved your sorry a...." biological weapon.
:D
sorry bud....but as soon as its the usa's turn...i'll be all over it:eek:
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Congrats your in a club of one: the people who think the Vietnam war was won
Tronsky
Congrats, you are a complete tard.
I never said it was won. But for winning the tard award, you get an entire year's supply to "Hooked on Phonics".
Don't let it go to waste!
-SW