NationStates Jolt Archive

- Gallic Wars

- Lost. In a war whose ending
foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered
by of all things, an Italian.



- Hundred Years War

- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are
victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.



- Italian Wars

- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.



- Wars of Religion

- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots



- Thirty Years War

- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.



- War of Revolution

- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.



- The Dutch War

- Tied



- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War

- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.



- War of the Spanish Succession

- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.



- American Revolution

- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action.
This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second
Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the
fighting."



- French Revolution

- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.



- The Napoleonic Wars

- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to
leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.



- The Franco-Prussian War

- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.



- World War I

- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep
with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly,
widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement
in the French bloodline.



- World War II

- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.



- War in Indochina

- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu



- Algerian Rebellion

- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic
Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim
Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the
First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch,
Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.



- War on Terrorism

- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador
fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should
not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France
collapses?"


"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."



Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

=======================
Copy/paste from another forum
All in the good fun of heckling

The Gauls weren't really french as understood today. Thier language and culture were not the same. The Gauls once ranged over a large part of Europe and even existed in Asia-Minor for a time.

I thought this was a joke thread, there is a french military? :D

But id like to point out that none was alive for all of those.

Look up french military victories then click im feeling lucky on gogle

That's really funny. It's exaggerated and one-sided, leaves out certain things while embellishing others, and the French have a worse rep than they deserve, but... that's hilarious.

LOL!! I know where this came from! HAHA :D

Great Job! I loved it.

This came from http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html did it not?

Despite your obvious, conservative leanings, you were very funny, so I'll give you props.

However, the Italian armies have a far worse record. Only the italians, with heavy weaponry, tanks, poison gas, and machine guns could get completely destroyed by the Ethiopians, a people who still fought mainly with spears! Those two wins against the French? How did those happen? I bet you that they hired Swiss Mercenaries. Those guys fight like f**king hell!

The people of France are probably glad that they don't live in a society as psychotically militaristic as that of the USA.

Only the italians, with tanks, poison gas
If they had them. Which they didn't.

The Gauls weren't really french as understood today. Thier language and culture were not the same. The Gauls once ranged over a large part of Europe and even existed in Asia-Minor for a time.

yeah, the gauls aka the celts were not frenchmen as you know them now. the present french are a mix of some celts, romans and various germanic tribes. and yeah, the gauls did do pretty well for themselves for some time. they sacked rome at some point. and delphi and athens as well. they even settled in turkey... galatia to be precise.

plus they fought naked except with golden torques around their necks.

Actually the USA were beaten soundly by the 3rd World Vietcong, so I'd keep quiet about the French (Normans) who conquered England! Also, the Italians who you scoff at used to known as Romans! Also, Great Britain were in WW2 fighting the Germans, Japanese and Italians for two years before the brave Yankies entered the war! The British go where angels fear to tread, whereas the Americans go where angels have already trodden!

However, the Italian armies have a far worse record.Does the phrase "The Roman Empire" mean anything to you?

Does the phrase "The Roman Empire" mean anything to you?
So? The Mayans were in Mexico. Does that mean the Mexicans should be credited for Mayan...inhuman acts?

If they had them. Which they didn't.
They did have all those things. Where did you here that they didn't?

And... The French kicked a lot more ass then the Yankees in WW1. The British did arguably as much as the US, if not more, for the duration of WW2 and the USSR, of course, simply pwned. I've actually read somewhere that the US has yet to win a single major conflict without France on their side. So I'd keep quiet about insulting the French Army. (Shhh!)

They did have all those things. Where did you here that they didn't?

And... The French kicked a lot more ass then the Yankees in WW1. The British did arguably as much as the US, if not more, for the duration of WW2 and the USSR, of course, simply pwned. I've actually read somewhere that the US has yet to win a single major conflict without France on their side. So I'd keep quiet about insulting the French Army. (Shhh!)
Quit calling us bloody Yanks! Do you even know how to use the term?

They did have all those things. Where did you here that they didn't?

And... The French kicked a lot more ass then the Yankees in WW1. The British did arguably as much as the US, if not more, for the duration of WW2 and the USSR, of course, simply pwned. I've actually read somewhere that the US has yet to win a single major conflict without France on their side. So I'd keep quiet about insulting the French Army. (Shhh!)

The front stalled outside of Paris. The Germans also kicked alot more ass than the US too against the French. All sides suffered heavy losses. The US Participation actually tip the scale against Germany and Germany Caved. Hell, Kaiser Bill tried to keep America out of the war. He feared us more the French or Brits.

No that's not true. Have you not heard of the 'Ludendorff Offensive'? Well, Germany was in deep shit after four years of fighting. So they launched a desperate, last-gasp offensive. It nearly succeeded, but for various reasons it fell short of Paris and the Brits and French were able to regroup. At this point the German army was broken and weeks from surrendering. THIS is where the US became majorly involved, most of their forces only arrived at the front line when the German Army was in full retreat. The US army certainly was a beneficial contribution to Germany’s defeat, but no more.

Oh, and the front did not stall outside of Paris. The German army was stopped at Paris, but was thrown back by the reinforcing French soldiers from the failed assault of Alsace-Lorraine. After retreating for several days the Germans dug in, they didn't build trenches straight away. And these trenches gradually shifted on average towards Germany, its just that the losses were so high for the amount of land gained.

Oh, and 'Kaiser Bill' was certainly much more worried by the French and British. That's why he introduced unrestricted submarine warfare against the US and other countries, to try to strave those two into submission.

Jeezy Creezy, not another my-country-can-brutally-kill-more-people-than-yours-can argument.

- Gallic Wars

- Lost. In a war whose ending
foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered
by of all things, an Italian.



- Hundred Years War

- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are
victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.



- Italian Wars

- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.



- Wars of Religion

- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots



- Thirty Years War

- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.



- War of Revolution

- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.



- The Dutch War

- Tied



- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War

- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.



- War of the Spanish Succession

- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.



- American Revolution

- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action.
This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second
Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the
fighting."



- French Revolution

- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.



- The Napoleonic Wars

- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to
leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.



- The Franco-Prussian War

- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.



- World War I

- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep
with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly,
widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement
in the French bloodline.



- World War II

- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.



- War in Indochina

- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu



- Algerian Rebellion

- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic
Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim
Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the
First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch,
Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.



- War on Terrorism

- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador
fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should
not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France
collapses?"


"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."



Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

=======================
Copy/paste from another forum
All in the good fun of heckling
The US:

Getting 4 planes kidnapped and steered into 2 skyscrapers and the Ministry of Defense. Despite having the most powerful military in the world, the sheer ineptness at preventing this disaster, proves that the US are at least as incapable.

Vietnam War ... lost.

US President 2001-2004 = shrub without a brain

US history = roughly 200 years

French history (or actually history of most other nations in the world) = variable, but in many cases several thousand years

US cultural achievements = McDonalds and Coca Cola, highest rate of obesity, self-induced overestimation syndrome coupled with considering themselves overimportant while being soft and squishy...

Lesson being: I'm glad that I am not US American.


Addendum: Canada is excempt from this list as it is clearly superior to the US, being on top of it and all that. Actually, I'm comfortable living in Germany. Seeing how many countries and armies it takes to defeat us, I'm proud of our strength as a people. Even though it didnt get us much benefit (yet) :p

Nah, just trying to correct him on a few points. I'm not French.

Anyhow: Very funny list. :D

How does having the most powerful military in the world stop 16 guys from hijacking airplanes. Is the Israeli military incompetent because they can't protect their discos and supermarket?

The US:

Getting 4 planes kidnapped and steered into 2 skyscrapers and the Ministry of Defense. Despite having the most powerful military in the world, the sheer ineptness at preventing this disaster, proves that the US are at least as incapable.

Vietnam War ... lost.

US President 2001-2004 = shrub without a brain

US history = roughly 200 years

French history (or actually history of most other nations in the world) = variable, but in many cases several thousand years

US cultural achievements = McDonalds and Coca Cola, highest rate of obesity, self-induced overestimation syndrome coupled with considering themselves overimportant while being soft and squishy...

Lesson being: I'm glad that I am not US American.


Addendum: Canada is excempt from this list as it is clearly superior to the US, being on top of it and all that. Actually, I'm comfortable living in Germany. Seeing how many countries and armies it takes to defeat us, I'm proud of our strength as a people. Even though it didnt get us much benefit (yet) :p
well done, you've created the most biased list. Listen, I know your anti-American, but do you really think you deserve a pat on the back for leaving out about a dozen wars?

How does having the most powerful military in the world stop 16 guys from hijacking airplanes. Is the Israeli military incompetent because they can't protect their discos and supermarket?
Indeed. Israel is right behind the US in the top 2 of "biggest failures of mankind".

Oh, and Gigatron? Your country has started and lost two World Wars, and has had their reputation forever tarnished thanks to events that happened over 60 years ago. Your country's faults are the reasons why America is what it is. I'm not going to bother to bring up a list of Germany's military faults, nor their poor idealistic views of the times of Hitler.

well done, you've created the most biased list. Listen, I know your anti-American, but do you really think you deserve a pat on the back for leaving out about a dozen wars?
That was the purpose of my list. To be equally as biased, jingoistic and incomplete as the list of the knowledgable thread starter.

Oh, and Gigatron? Your country has started and lost two World Wars, and has had their reputation forever tarnished thanks to events that happened over 60 years ago. Your country's faults are the reasons why America is what it is. I'm not going to bother to bring up a list of Germany's military faults, nor their poor idealistic views of the times of Hitler.
Go ahead. I can live with our historical failures. However, we'll not do such crap anymore now. Even if we could, it would be pointless. Europe is past pity reasons to start wars which were used for WW1 or 2 while the US are in the middle of this "hot phase". Watch out that you dont break your plaything.

That was the purpose of my list. To be equally as biased, jingoistic and incomplete as the list of the knowledgable thread starter.
Now there was about a dozen other ways you could've told him off, but you pick this way?

Now there was about a dozen other ways you could've told him off, but you pick this way?
Sure. Extreme and effective. Deal with it. It is nothing but the truth.

Quit calling us bloody Yanks! Do you even know how to use the term?



Ooops! Yankies, then.

Ooops! Yankies, then.
Even if that WERE the correct term to call Americans, you still spelled it wrong.


It's "Yankees" sonny

Sure. Extreme and effective. Deal with it. It is nothing but the truth.
I wouldn't mind it so much if that weren't your atitude toward every pro-American post I see you reply to.

The front stalled outside of Paris. The Germans also kicked alot more ass than the US too against the French. All sides suffered heavy losses. The US Participation actually tip the scale against Germany and Germany Caved. Hell, Kaiser Bill tried to keep America out of the war. He feared us more the French or Brits.


Feared your wealth yes, your soldiers.... I don't think so! Hahahah!

Ooops! Yankies, then.

Look:

Yank are for Northeners
Hicks are for Southeners
Royally Screwed/Very Sexy People are for Floridians

I swear we should secede one day...

Look:

Yank are for Northeners
Hicks are for Southeners
Royally Screwed/Very Sexy People are for Floridians

I swear we should secede one day...
and the millions of us to the West....well...we're forgotten...

I wouldn't mind it so much if that weren't your atitude toward every pro-American post I see you reply to.
My attitude is to beat Americans with their own arrogance and showing off your own failures which you so consequently and conveniently call "anti-american" and which you like to keep quiet.

and the millions of us to the West....well...we're forgotten...

You're "extravagant" ;)

My attitude is to beat Americans with their own arrogance and showing off your own failures which you so consequently and conveniently call "anti-american" and which you like to keep quiet.
Your not doing anything HERE! If you want to beat Americans in such a way, you come to America and do so. You see, most of the Americans here are not so ignorant, idiotic, and downright retarded as you suggest.

Basically, your barking up a tree with 1 cat while you could be barking up a tree with 30 cats.

1775-1783 American Revolutionary War--Defeated the Brits, The French and Spainish and Holland helped but basically won by America

1812-1815 War of 1812--Though it ended in a draw, America technically won the war because it got the brits to stop impressing our merchent marine into the British Navy

1848--The Mexican War--Won by the US

1861-1865 American Civil War--Won by the Union

1898--Spanish American War--Defeated the Spanish and gained the Philippines and Puerto Rico

1917--WWI--Thanks to the Zimmerman Note and other factors, USA Declares war on Germany. The next year Germany Surrenders

1941-1945--WWII--US gets bombed, goes on the defensive and gets pushed back to Midway. Fought back, Defeats them at Midway, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Destroyed most of the Japanese Major Cities and Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, Japan Surrenders. Germany and Italy Declares war. Patton frees Morocco and Moves west defeating Rommel while Monty does the same in the east. Patton takes the offensive in Scicily takes Palarmo and Masina before Monty got there. D-Day, US Suffers the most casualties on Omaha Beach. Patton arrives and leads 3rd Army and gains the most ground of any allied unit in the shortest amount of time. Eisenhower lets the Soviets take Berlin and Germany Surrenders first to the US and Britain then in a seperate ceremony to the Soviet Union.

1951-1953 Korean War--UN Action. Though the war is still going on, South Korea is still free thanks to the Blood of US Service Personel

1963-1973--Vietnam--US Wins every battle but still loses the war thanks to the President of the USA lying to the American People (And I'm not talking Nixon either though he did lie just not as much as Kennedy's VP did)

1988--Panama--Takes out drug Lord Noriega

1945-1990--Cold War--US bankrupts Soviet Union, Soviet Union collapses and the Berlin wall comes down

1991--1st Gulf War--US and a coalition of forces kicks out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait!

2001--Afghanistan--US forces assisted the Northern Alliance and drive the Taliban from power

2003--Iraq--US with a coalition of Forces drive Saddam Hussein from Power

You're "extravagant" ;)
Aww....we were going for "Masters"

Aww....we were going for "Masters"

What about Master Extravagants?

What about Master Extravagants?
How bout you call us "Sir/s" :D

1775-1783 American Revolutionary War--Defeated the Brits, The French and Spainish and Holland helped but basically won by America

1812-1815 War of 1812--Though it ended in a draw, America technically won the war because it got the brits to stop impressing our merchent marine into the British Navy

1848--The Mexican War--Won by the US

1861-1865 American Civil War--Won by the Union

1898--Spanish American War--Defeated the Spanish and gained the Philippines and Puerto Rico

1917--WWI--Thanks to the Zimmerman Note and other factors, USA Declares war on Germany. The next year Germany Surrenders

1941-1945--WWII--US gets bombed, goes on the defensive and gets pushed back to Midway. Fought back, Defeats them at Midway, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Destroyed most of the Japanese Major Cities and Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, Japan Surrenders. Germany and Italy Declares war. Patton frees Morocco and Moves west defeating Rommel while Monty does the same in the east. Patton takes the offensive in Scicily takes Palarmo and Masina before Monty got there. D-Day, US Suffers the most casualties on Omaha Beach. Patton arrives and leads 3rd Army and gains the most ground of any allied unit in the shortest amount of time. Eisenhower lets the Soviets take Berlin and Germany Surrenders first to the US and Britain then in a seperate ceremony to the Soviet Union.

1951-1953 Korean War--UN Action. Though the war is still going on, South Korea is still free thanks to the Blood of US Service Personel

1963-1973--Vietnam--US Wins every battle but still loses the war thanks to the President of the USA lying to the American People (And I'm not talking Nixon either though he did lie just not as much as Kennedy's VP did)

1988--Panama--Takes out drug Lord Noriega

1945-1990--Cold War--US bankrupts Soviet Union, Soviet Union collapses and the Berlin wall comes down

1991--1st Gulf War--US and a coalition of forces kicks out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait!

2001--Afghanistan--US forces assisted the Northern Alliance and drive the Taliban from power

2003--Iraq--US with a coalition of Forces drive Saddam Hussein from Power



I have yet to read such a one-sided load of unadulterated rubbish!

1775-1783 American Revolutionary War--Defeated the Brits, The French and Spainish and Holland helped but basically won by America

1812-1815 War of 1812--Though it ended in a draw, America technically won the war because it got the brits to stop impressing our merchent marine into the British Navy

1848--The Mexican War--Won by the US

1861-1865 American Civil War--Won by the Union

1898--Spanish American War--Defeated the Spanish and gained the Philippines and Puerto Rico

1917--WWI--Thanks to the Zimmerman Note and other factors, USA Declares war on Germany. The next year Germany Surrenders

1941-1945--WWII--US gets bombed, goes on the defensive and gets pushed back to Midway. Fought back, Defeats them at Midway, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Destroyed most of the Japanese Major Cities and Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, Japan Surrenders. Germany and Italy Declares war. Patton frees Morocco and Moves west defeating Rommel while Monty does the same in the east. Patton takes the offensive in Scicily takes Palarmo and Masina before Monty got there. D-Day, US Suffers the most casualties on Omaha Beach. Patton arrives and leads 3rd Army and gains the most ground of any allied unit in the shortest amount of time. Eisenhower lets the Soviets take Berlin and Germany Surrenders first to the US and Britain then in a seperate ceremony to the Soviet Union.

1951-1953 Korean War--UN Action. Though the war is still going on, South Korea is still free thanks to the Blood of US Service Personel

1963-1973--Vietnam--US Wins every battle but still loses the war thanks to the President of the USA lying to the American People (And I'm not talking Nixon either though he did lie just not as much as Kennedy's VP did)

1988--Panama--Takes out drug Lord Noriega

1945-1990--Cold War--US bankrupts Soviet Union, Soviet Union collapses and the Berlin wall comes down

1991--1st Gulf War--US and a coalition of forces kicks out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait!

2001--Afghanistan--US forces assisted the Northern Alliance and drive the Taliban from power

2003--Iraq--US with a coalition of Forces drive Saddam Hussein from Power
Can you also find the number and names of dictators which were installed by the US or which are to this date receiving support from the US? Can you furthermore list the number of innocent dead the US caused in all these wars? Can you furthermore explain to me why you consider inner-US "wars" such as the civil war, a victory for the US? "US" vs. "US" = well... "US" wins, duh. "US" as replacement for whatever your union and the other thing called themselves.

Can you furthermore explain to me why you consider inner-US "wars" such as the civil war, a victory for the US? "US" vs. "US" = well... "US" wins, duh. "US" as replacement for whatever your union and the other thing called themselves.
Certainly, the Southern states secedes from the Union, forming their own country and their own government. They were called the Confederate States of America. The Union, or the United States of America, sucessfully invaded and took back the states. Thus, the U.S. won.

How bout you call us "Sir/s" :D

No! :D

Can you also find the number and names of dictators which were installed by the US or which are to this date receiving support from the US? Can you furthermore list the number of innocent dead the US caused in all these wars? Can you furthermore explain to me why you consider inner-US "wars" such as the civil war, a victory for the US? "US" vs. "US" = well... "US" wins, duh. "US" as replacement for whatever your union and the other thing called themselves.

We're not argueing morality here

We're argueing which country kicks more ass.

ANTI-AMERICAN PIG!!

No! :D
Fine, you will sooner or later. It's just like my sig, "practice makes perfect, salute _____ today!"

Even if that WERE the correct term to call Americans, you still spelled it wrong.


It's "Yankees" sonny


Sorry my man, but Yankies is what we call you, and Yankies is what you are!

And while we are at it, can you explain to me why the US and Israel are today, considered the most dangerous threat to worldpeace by the vast majority of civilized people or even mankind? You know why? Because the US is a militarist super-power with weapons of mass destruction, a dangerous mixture of politics and religion aswell as a nation in its infancy with a serious psychological problem resulting in some sort of egomania to conquer the world or invent enemies that cannot be eliminated. What surprises me most is though that despite your claims that most US Americans are not dumb and ignorant, I constantly see proof of the exact opposite, beginning with your very own president.

Sorry my man, but Yankies is what we call you, and Yankies is what you are!
Actually, a closer and more correct term would be either "Surfer" or "Cowboy" for me, a Californian.


And people say they know more about us than we know about ourselves...pfft

We're not argueing morality here

We're argueing which country kicks more ass.

ANTI-AMERICAN PIG!!
I'm truthful, thus I am anti-american. Excuse me, dear most holy lord that I do not suck up to the americans and stick my tongue ino their ass to clean it off excess crap coming out of it. What a sin that I do not think the US are the greatest thing that happened to mankind.

And while we are at it, can you explain to me why the US and Israel are today, considered the most dangerous threat to worldpeace by the vast majority of civilized people or even mankind? You know why? Because the US is a militarist super-power with weapons of mass destruction, a dangerous mixture of politics and religion aswell as a nation in its infancy with a serious psychological problem resulting in some sort of egomania to conquer the world or invent enemies that cannot be eliminated. What surprises me most is though that despite your claims that most US Americans are not dumb and ignorant, I constantly see proof of the exact opposite, beginning with your very own president.
Our President was a mistake, much like Hitler was.

And people think that because they're really really really paranoid. Really!

And as long as the U.S. remains a democratic nation, more or less, the leaders are under the effect of "checks and balances"

And while we are at it, can you explain to me why the US and Israel are today, considered the most dangerous threat to worldpeace by the vast majority of civilized people or even mankind? You know why? Because the US is a militarist super-power with weapons of mass destruction, a dangerous mixture of politics and religion aswell as a nation in its infancy with a serious psychological problem resulting in some sort of egomania to conquer the world or invent enemies that cannot be eliminated. What surprises me most is though that despite your claims that most US Americans are not dumb and ignorant, I constantly see proof of the exact opposite, beginning with your very own president.

A little to far there buddy.

And while we are at it, can you explain to me why the US and Israel are today, considered the most dangerous threat to worldpeace by the vast majority of civilized people or even mankind? You know why? Because the US is a militarist super-power with weapons of mass destruction, a dangerous mixture of politics and religion aswell as a nation in its infancy with a serious psychological problem resulting in some sort of egomania to conquer the world or invent enemies that cannot be eliminated. What surprises me most is though that despite your claims that most US Americans are not dumb and ignorant, I constantly see proof of the exact opposite, beginning with your very own president.

Well geez, remember the elections were rigged ;)

Also, not our fault our President is an idiot and we are relgious, look at our ancestors...

They're Puritan damn it! If you gave us the sex pagans....

Besides I'm Cuban, I need to like two nations :P

1898--Spanish American War--Defeated the Spanish and gained the Philippines and Puerto Rico

American imperialist actions against a lesser enemy, land grabbing is hardly something to be proud of.

1917--WWI--Thanks to the Zimmerman Note and other factors, USA Declares war on Germany. The next year Germany Surrenders

America basically joins the war after the conclusion of who is going to win is allready obvious, Fence sitting and winning team joining, great achievement.

1941-1945--WWII--US gets bombed, goes on the defensive and gets pushed back to Midway. Fought back, Defeats them at Midway, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Destroyed most of the Japanese Major Cities and Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, Japan Surrenders. Germany and Italy Declares war. Patton frees Morocco and Moves west defeating Rommel while Monty does the same in the east. Patton takes the offensive in Scicily takes Palarmo and Masina before Monty got there. D-Day, US Suffers the most casualties on Omaha Beach. Patton arrives and leads 3rd Army and gains the most ground of any allied unit in the shortest amount of time. Eisenhower lets the Soviets take Berlin and Germany Surrenders first to the US and Britain then in a seperate ceremony to the Soviet Union.

Monty was much slower than patton, he also lost less lives of the people that fought under him and cared more for his troops. He was a carefully leader rather than making rash snap choices, since we are at it, lets also mention the fact patton phsyically abused his own wounded troops. The man is an affont to decency and fought only for his own personal glory.

1951-1953 Korean War--UN Action. Though the war is still going on, South Korea is still free thanks to the Blood of US Service Personel

Still going on thanks to the incompetance of einsenhower, the man whos tactical battle plane was to nuke all of north career and china too. Lets not forgot the fact he pushed the war north by invaded NK caused china to enter the war, prongling the conflict which coulc have been over much sooner. And mentioning only the blood of US service personal is rather insulting, why not mention the south koreans, or the many other nations that fought and died there, Oh i forgot american syndrome, when america joins something no one else matters.




1991--1st Gulf War--US and a coalition of forces kicks out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait!

That would be the saddam that the US funded and created in the first place, hence causing the whole damn situation by there interferance?

I'm truthful, thus I am anti-american. Excuse me, dear most holy lord that I do not suck up to the americans and stick my tongue ino their ass to clean it off excess crap coming out of it. What a sin that I do not think the US are the greatest thing that happened to mankind.
We don't want you to think that, but would you really believe me if I told you that? No!

Hey, Saddam screwed himself over. Wouldn't you sock a former friend if you didn't like him? Although Bush Jr. had no reason to go into Iraq...

We don't want you to think that, but would you really believe me if I told you that? No!
Your words and attacks against the truths I post speak otherwise.

Patton slapped soldiers who didn't want to fight twice...they weren't wounded.

Actually, a closer and more correct term would be either "Surfer" or "Cowboy" for me, a Californian.


And people say they know more about us than we know about ourselves...pfft



Oh dear, you are a Californian! Well that does explain everything! The lowest educational attainment in the whole of the U.S.A. Now that is a great accomplishment considering the average IQ of your average American citizen!

Your words and attacks against the truths I post speak otherwise.
How you reword my words is not my fault.

Oh dear, you are a Californian! Well that does explain everything! The lowest educational attainment in the whole of the U.S.A. Now that is a great accomplishment considering the average IQ of your average American citizen!

Actually it's Arkansas.

Feared your wealth yes, your soldiers.... I don't think so! Hahahah!

Then explain to me that everytime the US threatened to declare war on Germany during WWI Germany backed down and did what the was requested?

Oh dear, you are a Californian! Well that does explain everything! The lowest educational attainment in the whole of the U.S.A. Now that is a great accomplishment considering the average IQ of your average American citizen!
Quit your flamebaiting and stereotyping, I'm just making a point and you decide to spout your bullshit on me.

Hey, Saddam screwed himself over. Wouldn't you sock a former friend if you didn't like him? Although Bush Jr. had no reason to go into Iraq...
I'd rather say, the US screwed themselves over firstly by creating the dicator Hussein and secondly by entering Iraq, taking the burden of building up an entire nation. You will either go bankrupt on this or make your own enemy. Whichever happens, I will watch and gloat because you brought it about yourself - just like you cause increase in terrorism yourself, which you then claim to be fighting, despite doing the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder if the US are truly this ignorant or if you just are so dillusional that you think you are doing the right thing...

I'd rather say, the US screwed themselves over firstly by creating the dicator Hussein and secondly byentering Iraq, taking the burden of building up an entirenation. You will either go bankrupt on this or make your own enemy. Whichever happens, I will watch and gloat because you brought it about yourself - just like you cause increase in terrorism yourself, which you then claim to be fighting, despite doing the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder if the US are truly this ignorant or if you just are so dillusional that you think you are doing the right thing...
Whatever dude, how you interpert the world doesn't make it true.

Whatever dude, how you interpert the world doesn't make it true.
Ditto.

You really shouldn't blame the nation for the stupidity of one man.

Quit your flamebaiting and stereotyping, I'm just making a point and you decide to spout your bullshit on me.



.... you do prove my point!

Ditto.
So long as we agree on that, I hope you think that over a few times the next time you decide to stereotype.

.... you do prove my point!

Stop. Jerking. Off.

Stop. Jerking. Off.
Stop. Entering. My. Mind!

I'd say Norway is the world's fighting nation numero uno. We've just been lying low for the past, oh, 938 years. To get the rest of the world to relax its guard.

On a side note, Frenchmen are cool, especially so when they're loosing a battle or a war. Nobody can loose with more style and flair than the French.

Patton slapped soldiers who didn't want to fight twice...they weren't wounded.


Fucking bullshit.

Patton slapped men who were suffering, shell shock and post traumatic stress disorder. Both of which are well documented and accepted conditions. They are not about willingness to fight or cowardice. Those men who he slapped were as wounded as someone with a bullet through his arm.

They had been through more and done more, ever than a general and butcher of his own men sitting back behind all the action ever did.

Patton, a disgraceful human being, an american.

Fucking bullshit.

Patton slapped men who were suffering, shell shock and post traumatic stress disorder. Both of which are well documented and accepted conditions. They are not about willingness to fight or cowardice. Those men who he slapped were as wounded as someone with a bullet through his arm.

They had been through more and done more, ever than a general and butcher of his own men sitting back behind all the action ever did.

Patton, a disgraceful human being, an american.

You are retarded and hateful.

I find it pretty funny to read such a thread, since the US has lost every single military operation since WW2 due to the lack of political providence. And right at this very moment they even mess up in two places.

You really shouldn't blame the nation for the stupidity of one man.
Remember: Checks & Balances. Did nothing to prevent the shrub. I feel quite good blaming a democratic nation for their elected leader. And dont come with forged election. The US certainly are incapable of something as despicable and undemocratic as this! (sarcasm). Anyways, use your legal system to fight that. Unless you submit to the realization that your government system is lackluster and needs reform.

[QUOTE=Ankher]I find it pretty funny to read such a thread, since the US has lost every single military operation since WW2 due to the lack of political providence. And right at this very moment they even mess up in two places.[/QUOTE

Korean war wasn't lost, Gulf War wasn't lost.

As far as I know the two wars are still going on.

Remember: Checks & Balances. Did nothing to prevent the shrub. I feel quite good blaming a democratic nation for their elected leader. And dont come with forgedelection. The US certainly are incapable of something as despicable and undemocratic as this! (sarcasm). Anyways, use your legal system to fight that. Unless you submit to the realization that your government system is lackluster and needs reform.

Oh I get it now, you're pissed because the US fire bombed your city. Maybe Germany shouldn't invade other countries and kill Jews too.

You are retarded and hateful.


Displacement is a well know psycological thing as well.


I have neither a sub par IQ of a retard, and I dont hate.


Just because the truth can shatter pretty little illusions of your world is no reason to insult someone.

Remember: Checks & Balances. Did nothing to prevent the shrub. I feel quite good blaming a democratic nation for their elected leader. And dont come with forged election. The US certainly are incapable of something as despicable and undemocratic as this! (sarcasm). Anyways, use your legal system to fight that. Unless you submit to the realization that your government system is lackluster and needs reform.
We'll see come November. I take it you haven't seen the sheer amount of people who want Bush out and someone's who less...evil...in?

Fucking bullshit.

Patton slapped men who were suffering, shell shock and post traumatic stress disorder. Both of which are well documented and accepted conditions. They are not about willingness to fight or cowardice. Those men who he slapped were as wounded as someone with a bullet through his arm.

They had been through more and done more, ever than a general and butcher of his own men sitting back behind all the action ever did.

Patton, a disgraceful human being, an american.


Unfortunately, in the war quite a few American Generals thought more of their own ego and camera angles than how to defeat the enemy. Even the American High Command were getting pissed-off with them. Patton was one of those posers.

American imperialist actions against a lesser enemy, land grabbing is hardly something to be proud of.

However, it stemed from something that happened in Havana Harbor, not to mention that Cuba was the first to be freed before our attacks on Puerto Rico and Philippines took place. That was back under the ancient rule, you take a land, you rule it. Philippines today is freed and has been since the end of WWII and Puerto Rico is a US territory as is Guam, Saipan, the American Marianas.

America basically joins the war after the conclusion of who is going to win is allready obvious, Fence sitting and winning team joining, great achievement.

No arguement here. However if you read what the Zimmerman Note said, I think you would've declared war too. Something along the lines of promising the portions that Mexico lost during The Mexican War or something to that affect. Yea, I say that'll piss off the American People. Besides, WWI was basically stalled. Fresh troops came in and the balanced was tipped.

Monty was much slower than patton, he also lost less lives of the people that fought under him and cared more for his troops. He was a carefully leader rather than making rash snap choices, since we are at it, lets also mention the fact patton phsyically abused his own wounded troops. The man is an affont to decency and fought only for his own personal glory.

Monty was slow yes. He also didn't listen to reason. Patton knew what was needed to get done and since Monty was slow, Patton did it and in less time. Ironically, Monty was always bogged down and patton wasn't. Ironically, that it was Patton that relieved baston and not Monty. Patton did far more to help end WWII than Monty did. As for Personal glory, you could be right. How did he physically abuse his wounded soldiers? Fine he slapped a soldier. He slapped him because he couldn't stomach it. After that, the soldier fought as hard as ever. He also disengaged from a major battle and engaged in another with no sleep, no hot food and all within 48 hours. That was to relieve Baston btw.

Still going on thanks to the incompetance of einsenhower, the man whos tactical battle plane was to nuke all of north career and china too. Lets not forgot the fact he pushed the war north by invaded NK caused china to enter the war, prongling the conflict which coulc have been over much sooner. And mentioning only the blood of US service personal is rather insulting, why not mention the south koreans, or the many other nations that fought and died there, Oh i forgot american syndrome, when america joins something no one else matters.



Your right, Eisenhower was incompetent for Relieving MacArthur. Frankly even I oppose the idea of nuking anyone but by this time, Russia had the bomb which is probably why we never used them. He did not push it past the Yalu river. MacArther did that on his own accord by disobeying ordes. That was why he was relieved. Ok now that I got that out of the way. I'm not leaving them out. Your right, I should've mention them. My bad. I never knew that this was a politically sensitive debate. I hate political Correctness btw.


That would be the saddam that the US funded and created in the first place, hence causing the whole damn situation by there interferance?

As for funding that was during the Iran-Iraq War. Created? Don't think so. As for interfering, We can pin that on the Brits since they had that area and not the USA! If they had not invaded the Middle East, then maybe we wouldn't have half the crap that is going on over there.

We'll see come November. I take it you haven't seen the sheer amount of people who want Bush out and someone's who less...evil...in?

Nice way to say it :P

Oh I get it now, you're pissed because the US fire bombed your city. Maybe Germany shouldn't invade other countries and kill Jews too.
You are right. I am pissed about this. Though that was long ago and a mistake the US and Britain admitted. It was a sad side effect of the 2nd world war where just about all form of compassion was eradicated. The thing I am more pissed about is that the US never learn from their historic mistakes but commit ever worse crimes, resulting in ever worse tragedies.

How come nobody ever gives credit to Canada? We were in WWI and WWII from the start god damn it!

You are right. I am pissed about this. Though that was long ago and a mistake the US and Britain admitted. It was a sad side effect of the 2nd world war where just about all form of compassion was eradicated. The thing I am more pissed about is that the US never learn from their historic mistakes but commit ever worse crimes, resulting in ever worse tragedies.
'tis partially the fault of many incapable Americans doing their duty to vote and get rid of such political bastards. I swear, if George Washington came back from the dead, he'd run around slapping everyone he saw. Hell, he'd slap em just for being either Republican or Democrat.

Although this isn't entirely the fault of America/ns. The world itself is a hell hole, and the world was already commiting atrocious crimes and repeated mistakes long before America.

I find it pretty funny to read such a thread, since the US has lost every single military operation since WW2 due to the lack of political providence. And right at this very moment they even mess up in two places.

Korean war wasn't lost, Gulf War wasn't lost.

As far as I know the two wars are still going on.
Oh, so you won the Korean war? When last I looked on a map North Korea was still there.
And you won the second Gulf war? Well, if I recall right, you needed a second try to remove Saddam from power, did you not?

BTW I have been watching US news casts over the last 10 years or so, and what strikes me is the fact that you do not get the whole information on how your military really functions abroad. Especially during the last invasion of Iraq all reasonable and critical reporting was almost inexistent, because everyone in the media was afraid of being called "unpatriotic", whatever that may be.

How come nobody ever gives credit to Canada? We were in WWI and WWII from the start god damn it!
Because Canada doesn't get the attention countries like America and Britain receive. You were in the wars, yes, but you don't attract as much attention.

Oh, so you won the Korean war? When last I looked on a map North Korea was still there.
And you won the second Gulf war? Well, if I recall right, you needed a second try to remove Saddam from power, did you not?

BTW I have been watching US news casts over the last 10 years or so, and what strikes me is the fact that you do not get the whole information on how your military really functions abroad. Especially during the last invasion of Iraq all reasonable and critical reporting was almost inexistent, because everyone in the media was afraid of being called "unpatriotic", whatever that may be.

The objective of the Korean war was to liberate South Korea, which happened. We didn't manage to defeat North Korea, because the Chinese got involved and we couldn't attack China.

The objective of the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait, not remove Saddam. I think that's something the entire coalition decided on.

Oh, so you won the Korean war? When last I looked on a map North Korea was still there.
Actually, our goal was to keep the North Koreans from absorbing South Korea.
And you won the second Gulf war? Well, if I recall right, you needed a second try to remove Saddam from power, did you not? Thanks to the incompetence of Bush Sr., yes we did.

BTW I have been watching US news casts over the last 10 years or so, and what strikes me is the fact that you do not get the whole information on how your military really functions abroad. Especially during the last invasion of Iraq all reasonable and critical reporting was almost inexistent, because everyone in the media was afraid of being called "unpatriotic", whatever that may be.
Really now...What HAVE you been watching then?

And in any case...I'm out!

The objective of the Korean war was to liberate South Korea, which happened. We didn't manage to defeat North Korea, because the Chinese got involved and we couldn't attack China.

The objective of the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait, not remove Saddam. I think that's something the entire coalition decided on.Of course

And did you know that Saddam asked the US if he could go against Kuwait before he did?

Because Canada doesn't get the attention countries like America and Britain receive. You were in the wars, yes, but you don't attract as much attention.

We did just as much work! God!! WWI who fought for Vimmy Ridge? We are in the G8!!!

- Gallic Wars

- Lost. In a war whose ending
foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered
by of all things, an Italian.



- Hundred Years War

- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently
creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are
victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.



- Italian Wars

- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.



- Wars of Religion

- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots



- Thirty Years War

- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded
anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other
participants started ignoring her.



- War of Revolution

- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.



- The Dutch War

- Tied



- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War

- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.



- War of the Spanish Succession

- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.



- American Revolution

- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France
claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action.
This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second
Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the
fighting."



- French Revolution

- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.



- The Napoleonic Wars

- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to
leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British
footwear designer.



- The Franco-Prussian War

- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.



- World War I

- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.
Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep
with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly,
widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement
in the French bloodline.



- World War II

- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.



- War in Indochina

- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu



- Algerian Rebellion

- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic
Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim
Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the
First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch,
Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.



- War on Terrorism

- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and
Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador
fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.


The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should
not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France
collapses?"


"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."



Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

=======================
Copy/paste from another forum
All in the good fun of hecklingLOLOLLOLOL ROFL!

HAha thats great. People would always try to say, "hey france is good, they beat everybody with Napolean". To which I would say "Napolean was Italian" and nobody believes me. But its true.

so, Colodia, what youre basically saying is that states didnt want to be in the Us, but were forced to be in it? so the southern states are still an occupied area? gee, what a great country.

so, Colodia, what youre basically saying is that states didnt want to be in the Us, but were forced to be in it? so the southern states are still an occupied area? gee, what a great country.

Actually they are not occupied areas anymore. That went away when they were admitted back into the union!

In April 1861, Fort Sumter was fired on by Confederate forces. Thus the Confederates started the war, not the Union.

That would be the saddam that the US funded and created in the first place, hence causing the whole damn situation by there interferance?

Yes thats why The Iraqi army was armed with M-16s, M60A3 Patton tanks, F16 fighters, and F-111 ground attack FBers?

Yes the west funded Iraq during their war with Iran who had perviously violated the soverenty of embassys. But as was said at the time "its too bad they both could not lose". Most of the aid came via credits, IE Loans. Enemy of my enemy is my friend? It is because of these loans why the coalition forces are lobbing for debt reliefe for the new Iraq.

Iraq was durring the 70's and 80's a client state of the soviet block, thats why they were armed with soviet tanks, guns, and plans. We were blowing up T-72 and older Migs, and were being shot at by AK47's.

well their C3 and air defence system was designed by the french... and their bunkers built by the germans but.... I digress.

If anyone thinks that the action in Afganistan was "Easy" the have a derth of understanding of modern operational warefare. The soviets tried invading afganistan and were driven out over a period of long years. The US was able to drive the taliban from power in a little over 6 weeks. Hyperwar they call it. Attack from the air with special forces designating targets, cordinating with In-dig forces, while supply convention forces via the air. A logistical tour de force. (all war is logistical) Meanwhile it caused a shift of dynamics between the Indian Pakistan relationship which has been totering on the brink of Nu-War since 1998.

You can argue about the need or timing of the 2nd gulf war, but to say its a failure, or "unilateral" is to deny reality. In the US the debate has been framed "would you rather fight over there or would you rather have shopping malls, grade schools, and movie theaters blow up over here?"

Three strategies for the global war on terror (GWoT) currently being advanced in America
1: Fight it like a police operation (AKA do what we and the world were doing 9-10-01)
This train of thought thinks that GWoT needs to be fought in the shadows by intel agencys, international police, and special forces raids. You stop attacks with good intel, you monitor and arrest cells, and you use special forces to go get "The bad guys". France and Germany advance this stratgey (John F Kerry)

2: Fight the GWoT like any other war between idealogies. "Your either with us or against us" Policy of premption, you go after regiems that harbor or suport terrorists. You look at threats and go after them. You Attack Iraq, you fight rebals in SE Asia, train up states in caucauses. Suport states that are fighting their own local battles with terror cells. (all politics is local). You declare an Axis of Evil. Gather forces on two sides of Iran (IRaq and Afganistan), Isolate North Korea with pressure from the south, China, Japan and Russia. (curent president)

3: Do nothing, Build "Fortress America" or fortress "West". Decrease Imigration, Decrease Direct foriegn invetsment in other developing countries, wall yourself or the civilized world off from the problem areas or countries. Turn inward. (far Leftwingers, and far right wingers Dean, Pat Bukanen <sp!>)

If you want to understand the GWoT I recomend Thomas Barnett book "Pentagons New Map" Yes the guy is a flaming liberal but he understands war in the context of globalistation. (And what the terrorists are really trying to stop is globalistation after all)

China is the big wild card they get 70% of their oil from the Gulf and their demand looks to double in the next 10 years. The United States can live without oil from the gulf (we get the vast vast majority of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and south america) China can not.

so, Colodia, what youre basically saying is that states didnt want to be in the Us, but were forced to be in it? so the southern states are still an occupied area? gee, what a great country.

Yes. The South [Dixie] was occupied by the north. The united states as a whole elected a republican who campaigned on abolition, and southern Democrat leaders wanted to keep their slaves, so they seceded when Lincoln won. Not even New Orleans could stand against the Union army. And after the war all the poor poor slaveowners were repressed from beating all the 'darkies' into submission. Hell, those Republicans even set it up so that former slaves were running for political office and learning to read. How dare they?

You obviously know a lot about American history.
/sarcasm.

Most people passionately label war as one of the world's horrors. You read something in a paper about a tragic war story and you go, 'Oh, how simply awful I must condemn war as often as I can.'

Yet when it comes down to an argument such as this, people feel compelled to boast over who has the most powerful army.

I say who cares? Well done you can kill more people at a faster rate and more explosively and more colourful than anyone else. Something to be proud of America.

What you should be proud of is your economy, social well being and political freedoms (as on this site funnily enough). But no.

Now I'm not anti-American - in fact it's my second favourite country besides England - but some of your customs are utterly moronic. One only has to watch the movie Independence Day to see Americans in action.

ALIENS INVADE THE WORLD!!! The world trembles before their might. Only one country can save it, is it a bird, is it a plane, no it's SUPER USA!! American heros fight a brave battle against the aliens in the air and in space which lasts for ages... then towards the end they show - so briefly if you blink you miss it - the rest of the world emerging victorious.

What's worse are the smaller things like all the STUPID OVERTHETOP RIDICULOUS OH MY GOD SOMEONE DECAPITATE THAT MAN salutes when the president makes his, 'Today, we celebrate our INDEPENDENCE DAY!! Dum, dum dum dum, ddduuummm dumdumdumdum.' And of course who could forget the ultimate stereotypical yankie doodle twist... The president is... AN EX-PILOT FROM THE GULF WAR WHERE WE KICKED ISLAM'S ASS!. Much like in Airforce 1 where the president is... AN EX-ELITE TROOPER WHO IS THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST, SIR!!.

I must of been about ten when Indepence Day first came out and I loved that bullshit, now I just laugh. What does that say about your mental abilities? The movie was made with the typical american adult in mind - yet also appeals to an English boy for the same reasons but by the age of 17 he has matured enough to recognise the ignorance of a people who idolise nothing more than the ideal of a combat veteran president. :mp5:

Every nation has its moment/s of glory. Britain had the most effective army during the 19th century, america has it now (or perhaps all it has is the largest number of incompetents gathered together into one single organisation aptly named an army - the scum of the world). Afterall the majority of allied casualties in the first Gulf War were from American FRIENDLY FIRE. If that is the way Americans treat their friends is it any wonder it doesn't have many and those they have are only their friends because they are terrified of what they will do to them if they become the Yanks enemy. :mp5:

France has won enough to become one of the worlds greatest nations.

Agreed. If the United States had just passed out flowers and let the Soviets take over Europe through Japan in WWII, the world would be a much brighter, more intellectually stimulating place under the thumb of nikita's successor. We really need to stop getting in the way of genocide and 'progress'.

For people that are a interested in facts instead of biased propaganda a la Gothicum and the one of Johnistan. Just took something from the WWII and millitary forum that I follow since a few years.

Nice to know that following US sources the best modern tank is the German LeopardII A6 (like the great cats they made in WWII, simply the best, followed by Abrahams (US) and Leclerc (FRENCH) at almost equal positions. .




Look at this US article :
http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf

I can provide some information about the Leclerc which is a 3rd generation MBT :

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/prod_leclerc.asp

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/prod_finders.asp

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/specs.html

http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/leclerc.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leclerc.htm

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/pdf/us_esp_leclerc_01.pdf

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/pdf/us_ftech_leclerc.pdf

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/leclerc/leclerc1.html

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/leclerc/leclerc2.html

The Leclerc is very agile and more easy to project, it weights only 56 tons in comparison to the 69.54 tons of an Abrams and the 62 tons of a Leopard 2A6.
The Leclerc is well adapted to cross-country fire-on-the-move against mobile targets thanks to its automatic loading system which allows also high speed reloading (firing rate of 12 rounds/minute). The digital fire control system allows the gunner or commander to select six different targets to be engaged in just over 30 seconds. The Leclerc can fire while moving cross-country at 40 km/h at a targer located at 4000m and moving itself at 60 km/h. I think the Leclerc is superior in these tasks to the other tanks. The Leopard and Abrams can fire while moving but they have to drive more slowly and against targets only 3000m far AFAIK. All the tanks without an automatic loading system often had to stop in order to reload. I don't think which tank is the best but I think the Leclerc is in the top 5.

A 2010 version is planned carrying new gadgets and features.
In addition to the digital revolution of communications and military internet other stuffs are expected :
- The active and passive protections will again be improved. Electronic protection (active protection which attacks aggressive projectiles and countermeasures which decoy or deceive the enemy) will gradually take over from conventional armour (without however replacing it),
- Firing onto masked or far targets (up to 10 km) thanks to the use of onboard minidrones which will be in charge of detection for the tank which will fire guided munitions. It will be able to fire new smart and long range shells (roof attack) called POLY-NG CGN3D.
- Lastly, stealth technologies will make the tank a target increasingly difficult to acquire in the radar and infrared fields.
- discussions about a 140mm gun

blitzkreig, here we come! :mp5: So europeens are capable of jingoism too (that is if this person is european, not 'just' Turkic ;) ). Who woulda thunk it?

[QUOTE=New Lower Beringia]blitzkreig, here we come! QUOTE]

Euh it is "Blitzkrieg" :rolleyes:
Who are the "Turkic"?

LOLOLLOLOL ROFL!

HAha thats great. People would always try to say, "hey france is good, they beat everybody with Napolean". To which I would say "Napolean was Italian" and nobody believes me. But its true.

First things first, it's Napoleon. Secondly, Napoleon learned the art of war in France, the Armies he led were made of frenchmen, and all of his marshals, who were just as brilliant as he was (well... most of them), were French, so get over the "he was Italian" thing, he was just as French as if he had been born in Brittanny (of course, I'm sure someone will argue Bretons aren't French either).

Euh it is "Blitzkrieg" :rolleyes:

You'll notice there are a lot of typing/ grammatical err0rs in this thread, as in anymessage board. Pleaes to not get your laterhosen in a not. :D

Who are the "Turkic"? perhaps turkish is more understandable. They're currently a hotly contested entrant into the EU. Remembe Chirac blowing a gasket at the last nato conference?

1775-1783 American Revolutionary War--Defeated the Brits, The French and Spainish and Holland helped but basically won by America

80% of the powder used by the American Army, almost all it's small arms (the Continental Army used the Charleville, guess who makes it?), almost all it's artillery ammunition, half of the besieging Army at Yorktown, something to float the US dollar on, and the besieging Navy at Yorktown, yea, who says we needed those pesky French,

1812-1815 War of 1812--Though it ended in a draw, America technically won the war because it got the brits to stop impressing our merchent marine into the British Navy

Uh, beyond the fact that they had agreed to stop doing that before the war, we got thoroughly thrashed in that war, all our invasions of Canada (A prime reason for the war, though not officially) were thrust back at heavy loss, we almost lost our grip on the Northwest, and our capitol was burned, face it, it was a draw, no one won, neither side acheived it's prime objectives.

1848--The Mexican War--Won by the US

It started in 1846.

1861-1865 American Civil War--Won by the Union

Wow, who would have guessed the Americans would win the American Civil War, at least the Americans didn't have to contend with foreign nations.

1898--Spanish American War--Defeated the Spanish and gained the Philippines and Puerto Rico

Defeated the Spanish, come on, that is just a bit too easy, we absolutely crushed the Spanish.

1917--WWI--Thanks to the Zimmerman Note and other factors, USA Declares war on Germany. The next year Germany Surrenders

Germany surrendered becuase it was on the brink of starvation and revolution, it's Army had been soundly defeated during the Kaiserschlacht Offensive (by the British and French, not Americans), and it had no hope of victory. America just shortened the French & British casualty lists.

1941-1945--WWII--US gets bombed, goes on the defensive and gets pushed back to Midway. Fought back, Defeats them at Midway, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Destroyed most of the Japanese Major Cities and Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, Japan Surrenders. Germany and Italy Declares war.

Good so far, though you've left out massacres like Tarawa.

Patton frees Morocco

From the Vichy French, who were not part of the Axis, so freeing is really a subjective term here.

and Moves west defeating Rommel

He never faced Rommel in combat, and when he ran into him, the Americans got routed (Kasserine Pass ring a bell).

while Monty does the same in the east.

Monty, unlike Patton, fought Rommel himself all the way from El Alamein in Egypt, across Cyrenica and Tripolitonia to the Mareth Line in Tunisia, Patton fought token forces guarding the German flank until being hit hard.

Patton takes the offensive in Scicily takes Palarmo and Masina before Monty got there.

Given that Monty was not only fighting in harder terrain, but against better-equipped and trained forces, is that surprising, had Patton been able to put his ego away and support Monty instead of his quest for glory, the Axis might have been cutoff before they were able to evacuate from Messina. He also slaughtered a lot of his own men in his campaign from Palermo to Messina, in unnecessary actions becuase he was bent on getting there before Monty.

D-Day, US Suffers the most casualties on Omaha Beach.

Not exactly something to gloat about, especially since the US made up only 50% of the Army of the Liberation.

Patton arrives and leads 3rd Army and gains the most ground of any allied unit in the shortest amount of time.

Only becuase the British and Canadians were battering the Germans (and most of their armour) at Caen, and the American First Army had been fighting so viciously against what was left of Army Group B, Patton barely faced any opposition.

Eisenhower lets the Soviets take Berlin and Germany Surrenders first to the US and Britain then in a seperate ceremony to the Soviet Union.

Mostly becuase Donitz could reach SHAEF in Rheims faster than any Soviet HQ.

1951-1953 Korean War--UN Action. Though the war is still going on, South Korea is still free thanks to the Blood of US Service Personel

And Canadians, British, French, Australians, and every other UN force, along with the South Koreans, who took far more casualties than the US, and by war's end made up most of the Army.

1963-1973--Vietnam--US Wins every battle but still loses the war thanks to the President of the USA lying to the American People (And I'm not talking Nixon either though he did lie just not as much as Kennedy's VP did)

Not to mention no support at home.

1988--Panama--Takes out drug Lord Noriega

Yes

1945-1990--Cold War--US bankrupts Soviet Union, Soviet Union collapses and the Berlin wall comes down

You know, a lot of anti-communists like to toute that Communism is inheritently self-destructive, than say the US bankrupted the Soviet Union, well, which one is it boys. Face up to it, the Soviet Union destroyed itself, and Berliners broke down the Wall, not the US Government.

80% of the powder used by the American Army, almost all it's small arms (the Continental Army used the Charleville, guess who makes it?), almost all it's artillery ammunition, half of the besieging Army at Yorktown, something to float the US dollar on, and the besieging Navy at Yorktown, yea, who says we needed those pesky French,

I didn't think I said that we needed them. Yes the French helped but so did the Spanish and the Netherlands. US though did most of the fighting. US wound up winning Yorktown thanks to the French Fleet. I never said that they didn't do anything. I said it was mostly won by Americans. The other nations helped but look when they came to our aide. The French didn't jump in till after Saratoga. That battle actually tilted the Revolution into our favor.

Uh, beyond the fact that they had agreed to stop doing that before the war, we got thoroughly thrashed in that war, all our invasions of Canada (A prime reason for the war, though not officially) were thrust back at heavy loss, we almost lost our grip on the Northwest, and our capitol was burned, face it, it was a draw, no one won, neither side acheived it's prime objectives.

Actually the messege arrived to late. It arrived AFTER the declaration of war. They could've have sued for Peace before they sent troops and we could've talked it out. They didn't. They choose to fight. The fight ended in a draw anyway.

It started in 1846.

Thanks for the Correction. My brain is tired from studying for a Calc quiz I have on Tuesday and a Chemistry quiz on Wensday.

Wow, who would have guessed the Americans would win the American Civil War, at least the Americans didn't have to contend with foreign nations.

Thankfully. Though the CSA tried hard but after a battle (Forgot how to spell the name), Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and that kept Britain and France from siding with the CSA. Though the US and Britain was on the verge of war thanks to the Trent Affair. Luckily Prince Albert intervened and feathers were smoothed.

Defeated the Spanish, come on, that is just a bit too easy, we absolutely crushed the Spanish.

True it was easy. Iron on wood don't mix!

Germany surrendered becuase it was on the brink of starvation and revolution, it's Army had been soundly defeated during the Kaiserschlacht Offensive (by the British and French, not Americans), and it had no hope of victory. America just shortened the French & British casualty lists.

Your right about this but then, neither side was moving very much when we entered the fray. Remember, the US never joined any alliance when we declared war.


Good so far, though you've left out massacres like Tarawa.

To be honest, Tarawa was shall we say interesting. Landed at the wrong time and to far from the shore. Our soldiers had to wade to shore amist Japanes Fire. What was supposed to be an easy operation turned into 3 days of hell. Come to think of it Pelelu was supposed to be easy too and that cost us greatly and we never needed Pelelu.

From the Vichy French, who were not part of the Axis, so freeing is really a subjective term here.

Well considering it was the French soldiers that went to Paris and not American or Brits speak volumn. But alas in this you are mistaken. Germany did take Vichy France because we landed in Southern France to free it from the Germans too. If they were free then why did we launch an armed invasion through the English channel and not landing in free Vichy France and attack there?

He never faced Rommel in combat, and when he ran into him, the Americans got routed (Kasserine Pass ring a bell).

No never faced him in combat but he did defeat Rommel's Plan. Patton WAS NOT incharge when Kasserine took place. Yes it does ring a bell and we did get totally slaughtered. Look what happened when we put Patton incharge. Watch Patton sometime. Its based on actual events.

Monty, unlike Patton, fought Rommel himself all the way from El Alamein in Egypt, across Cyrenica and Tripolitonia to the Mareth Line in Tunisia, Patton fought token forces guarding the German flank until being hit hard.

Monty got lucky at El Alamein. There is no denying he did. If Hitler let Rommel have what he wanted to have instead of giving it to the Soviet Campaign, Monty would've been defeated.

Given that Monty was not only fighting in harder terrain, but against better-equipped and trained forces, is that surprising, had Patton been able to put his ego away and support Monty instead of his quest for glory, the Axis might have been cutoff before they were able to evacuate from Messina. He also slaughtered a lot of his own men in his campaign from Palermo to Messina, in unnecessary actions becuase he was bent on getting there before Monty.

Considering if they had followed Patton's plans, I'm sure that the casualties would've been alot lower since Patton knew what was key and what wasn't. However, politics got in the way and Patton did it anyway basically disregarding orders. As for slaughtering, your right he did but how many more casualties would he have suffered if he followed his original orders. Patton was many things and a maverick was actually one them.

Not exactly something to gloat about, especially since the US made up only 50% of the Army of the Liberation.

However, Omaha was the toughest beach to crack. US Suffered far more than the others because of that. Yes all nations involved suffered casualties; the Poles, britains, canadains, Czechs; but the US took more. Not because of poor planning but because of the defenses that the Germans had up.

Only becuase the British and Canadians were battering the Germans (and most of their armour) at Caen, and the American First Army had been fighting so viciously against what was left of Army Group B, Patton barely faced any opposition.

Patton was basically bogged down too. He had the best terrain and knew how to use his equipment and where to attack. Not bad for a guy who claims he participated in all the famous battles throughout the history of the world. He was a military historian so he knew where and how to attack an enemy.

Mostly becuase Donitz could reach SHAEF in Rheims faster than any Soviet HQ.

This is probably so but I'll have to study this up.

And Canadians, British, French, Australians, and every other UN force, along with the South Koreans, who took far more casualties than the US, and by war's end made up most of the Army.

As I've said it was a UN action. Yes South Koreans suffered more casualties but look at the overal scope of the war. Most of the fighting was done in the South Korean part. Both Koreas suffered heavily. Now South Korea is thriving and North Korea is developing Nukes and issuing demands and the US will not accept those demands because its nuclear blackmail.

Not to mention no support at home.

This I blame on the media and the government that was in power.

Yes

Can't argue with it.

You know, a lot of anti-communists like to toute that Communism is inheritently self-destructive, than say the US bankrupted the Soviet Union, well, which one is it boys. Face up to it, the Soviet Union destroyed itself, and Berliners broke down the Wall, not the US Government.

I say that the US Bankrupt it. My parents say that the US bankrupt it and the encyclopedias say the same thing. Yes the Soviet Union destroyed itself. When they realized what was happening, the started to free their protectorates. In 1990, that was when the Berlin Wall came down. You are right. It was done by Berliners because they wanted ONE unified nation.

Why I would not like to be in the American military:

Major conflicts in the last 100 years:

WWI: Late
WWII: Late
Korea: Won
Vietnam: Lost
Gulf war: Unfinished
Afghanistan: Won??
Iraq: Won??

(For the latter two - if so, what does victory mean?)

"War" on terror: Losing

I didn't think I said that we needed them. Yes the French helped but so did the Spanish and the Netherlands. US though did most of the fighting. US wound up winning Yorktown thanks to the French Fleet. I never said that they didn't do anything. I said it was mostly won by Americans. The other nations helped but look when they came to our aide. The French didn't jump in till after Saratoga. That battle actually tilted the Revolution into our favor.

Very well then, as long as you're not discounting the immense support from France, without which the war would've been lost.


Actually the messege arrived to late. It arrived AFTER the declaration of war. They could've have sued for Peace before they sent troops and we could've talked it out. They didn't. They choose to fight. The fight ended in a draw anyway.

I am aware the message arrived too late, but even had it arrived in time, the war was inevitable, a lot of congressmen had an inflated view of US power in the New World.



Thanks for the Correction. My brain is tired from studying for a Calc quiz I have on Tuesday and a Chemistry quiz on Wensday.

To be fair and honest, I had to look this up in one of my books first, since my initial thought was 1845.


Your right about this but then, neither side was moving very much when we entered the fray. Remember, the US never joined any alliance when we declared war.

Neither side was moving becuase the Germans were in deep crisis with the failure of Kaiserschlacht, and the French and British were marshaling their forces after defeating Kaiserschlacht, the Germans were on the verge of a full retreat.


To be honest, Tarawa was shall we say interesting. Landed at the wrong time and to far from the shore. Our soldiers had to wade to shore amist Japanes Fire. What was supposed to be an easy operation turned into 3 days of hell. Come to think of it Pelelu was supposed to be easy too and that cost us greatly and we never needed Pelelu.

It's Peleliu, trust me, you're not the only person to make that mistake.



Well considering it was the French soldiers that went to Paris and not American or Brits speak volumn. But alas in this you are mistaken.

Vichy France, and the Free French Commitee (to which Leclerc's 2nd Armoured had allegiance too) were completely different governments.

Germany did take Vichy France because we landed in Southern France to free it from the Germans too.

Germany had invaded the Vichy Free Zone following Operation Torch (The Allied North Africa Landings), so Morocco is not part of the Axis, so again, freeing is a subjective term, since Morocco was not under the Axis heel.

If they were free then why did we launch an armed invasion through the English channel and not landing in free Vichy France and attack there?

They were not free, but they were not belligerent towards the US (partly to the British, but Mers-El-Kebir rang in French ears, and British moves at Dakar and the Levant). And Freeing Morocco did not take much effort, most Vichy Resistance either collapsed quickly, or switched allegiance from Vichy to the Free French. And we did land in Vichy France, Operation Dragoon (which was undertaken by 3 American, and 5 Free French Divisions).


Patton WAS NOT incharge when Kasserine took place.

You are correct, the American forces at Kasserine were under Fredendall's command, Patton did a lot to revitalize the US forces after this disaster, but still, his contribution to the North African war pale in comparison to the British/Commonwealth, and Monty.

Yes it does ring a bell and we did get totally slaughtered. Look what happened when we put Patton incharge. Watch Patton sometime. Its based on actual events.

As a historian, you should know to never quote or trust Hollywood for historical events, Patton is heavily biased, and fraught with errors.


Monty got lucky at El Alamein. There is no denying he did.

I've studied the battle, read the book War Without Hate for a good analysis of El Alamein, and the defensive battle before it (Alam el Halfa). Exactly where did Monty get Lucky, he simply outfought Rommel, fair and straight.

If Hitler let Rommel have what he wanted to have instead of giving it to the Soviet Campaign, Monty would've been defeated.

And how would more forces be sent, let's not forget the entire Afrika Corps was only 2 Panzer and a Motorized division strong, and they couldn't even keep them supplied. This is one of Rommel's great flaws that made him an excellent tactical commander, but an abysmal strategic commander, he did not recognize the problems of his supply situation. The Regia Marine could not keep the current force supplied, and had no hope of either delivering more forces, or keeping them supplied. The Axis already had too many troops deployed in North Africa. Monty could have had an even more crushing success had more divisions been present.



Considering if they had followed Patton's plans, I'm sure that the casualties would've been alot lower since Patton knew what was key and what wasn't.

In hindsight, Patton's plan was the better of the two, but the more ambitious, and therefore, more susceptible to disaster. But that he went through with what he did is despicable, he had no regard for his soldiers.

However, politics got in the way and Patton did it anyway basically disregarding orders.

It wasn't politics, Monty's plan was ismply the safer. The American forces had yet to prove themselves the equal of their Allies, they had just been revitalized by Patton after their disastrous first encounters with the Germans. There was little evidence to support that an American force could operate on it's own so far from any help.

As for slaughtering, your right he did but how many more casualties would he have suffered if he followed his original orders.

A lot less, since he would be moving together with an allied force (he would be devalued to a covering force really), and at a pace a lot more methodical and paced than his race from Palermo to Messina.

However, Omaha was the toughest beach to crack. US Suffered far more than the others because of that. Yes all nations involved suffered casualties; the Poles, britains, canadains, Czechs; but the US took more. Not because of poor planning but because of the defenses that the Germans had up.

It was not becuase of the German defenses, it was becuase of a large series of things that went wrong. Almost everything that could go wrong, did on Omaha. Unlike most beaches, Omaha had not been properly bombarded by Naval Artillery, and like most beaches, the Bombers had overshot their targets on the beach. But that is only the beginning, the DD tanks to support Omaha floundered and sank, and horrible tides ripped open many of the landing craft. Coupled with a withdrawal of close Naval support, Omaha became the slaughter it was.

Patton was basically bogged down too.

Against.... what? Until he turned to close the Falaise Gap, he was not facing serious German resistance since the breakout at Avranches (acheived in large part becuase of the American First Army).

He had the best terrain and knew how to use his equipment and where to attack. Not bad for a guy who claims he participated in all the famous battles throughout the history of the world. He was a military historian so he knew where and how to attack an enemy.

He did know how to use his forces, but he also was over-ambitious, such as he proposal for a much wider encirclement at Falaise. Had his plan been adopted, the German Mortain counter-attack may have succeeded, and left the Third Army stranded in it's own pocket, cutoff from either the Canadian First or American First Armies.



This is probably so but I'll have to study this up.

He had shifted his HQ to the Naval Academy near Kiel, which was closer to the British Armies than the Soviet, so he treated with them, eventually securing the surrender of German forces facing the British, and later with SHAEF at Rheims, for the full surrender (Since Monty, surprisingly, refused to accept the surrender of the entire German Army).



I say that the US Bankrupt it. My parents say that the US bankrupt it and the encyclopedias say the same thing. Yes the Soviet Union destroyed itself. When they realized what was happening, the started to free their protectorates. In 1990, that was when the Berlin Wall came down. You are right. It was done by Berliners because they wanted ONE unified nation.

Most Russian Experts agree, the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself, the US had a part in it, but the self-destructiveness of it's own system is what did it in, not the US. I'm not sure what encyclopedias you are reading, but most that carefully look at the subject, realize the same thing.

Why I would not like to be in the American military:

Major conflicts in the last 100 years:

WWI: Late

True

WWII: Late

This is just plain ignorance of the facts to say the US was late in WW2, the US may have been a bit tardy it coming in, but it came in at just the right time.

Korea: Won

Strange you call this won, but Gulf War I unfinished, in truth, both were won.

Vietnam: Lost

True

Gulf war: Unfinished

Iraq was thrust back out of Kuwait, Won.

Afghanistan: Won??
Iraq: Won??

(For the latter two - if so, what does victory mean?)

"War" on terror: Losing

The last three are ongoing, so won/lost is no applicable.

Tweety the Hat (post #60) -- Please stop the personal attacks.
Johnistan (posts #46, 71, 75) -- Ditto.

Just a friendly request.

Very well then, as long as you're not discounting the immense support from France, without which the war would've been lost.

Not going to discount it. It was an integral part in our history even though the French did join late but arrived to help at Yorktown. To borrow a quote from the movie The Patriot "Gotta love the French"


I am aware the message arrived too late, but even had it arrived in time, the war was inevitable, a lot of congressmen had an inflated view of US power in the New World.

In this you are probably right. I won't dispute it because I really have no facts to back it up but it really wouldn't surprise me. Only being in existence for about thirty years before we fought them a Second Time, even I didn't consider us this powerful. LOL



To be fair and honest, I had to look this up in one of my books first, since my initial thought was 1845.

At least we got the year right! That is the most important thing! :)


Neither side was moving becuase the Germans were in deep crisis with the failure of Kaiserschlacht, and the French and British were marshaling their forces after defeating Kaiserschlacht, the Germans were on the verge of a full retreat.

You are right and when Americans landed it helped them form a better plan with fresher troops. Germany crumbled when the attack occured. Your right, the Germans was on the verge of defeat. Sometimes I wonder why we got involved but I can see why we did.


It's Peleliu, trust me, you're not the only person to make that mistake.

Spelling is not my forte. LOL


Vichy France, and the Free French Commitee (to which Leclerc's 2nd Armoured had allegiance too) were completely different governments.

You are right here. Charles De Gaul led the forces that liberated Paris and Leclerc's forces did magnificent in battle.

Germany had invaded the Vichy Free Zone following Operation Torch (The Allied North Africa Landings), so Morocco is not part of the Axis, so again, freeing is a subjective term, since Morocco was not under the Axis heel.

Yes I know it was the allied North African Landings. I've studied WWII though I will admit I've studied the Pacific more indepth than Europe.

They were not free, but they were not belligerent towards the US (partly to the British, but Mers-El-Kebir rang in French ears, and British moves at Dakar and the Levant). And Freeing Morocco did not take much effort, most Vichy Resistance either collapsed quickly, or switched allegiance from Vichy to the Free French. And we did land in Vichy France, Operation Dragoon (which was undertaken by 3 American, and 5 Free French Divisions).


True they weren't biligerent towards us but definetely to the Brits because of what they did to the French fleet in Algeria I believe it was. The Brits destroyed the French Fleet so that it did not fall into the hands of the Nazis. Thanks again for supplying some info that I have forgotten. As I've said, I'm more partial to the Pacific than Europe.

You are correct, the American forces at Kasserine were under Fredendall's command, Patton did a lot to revitalize the US forces after this disaster, but still, his contribution to the North African war pale in comparison to the British/Commonwealth, and Monty.

No wonder we object to having foreign commmanders incharge of US Troops. When we do, we get slaughtered! LOL! Patton did revitalize the US Forces when it was badly needed but you are right in the rest of you said too.

As a historian, you should know to never quote or trust Hollywood for historical events, Patton is heavily biased, and fraught with errors.

True but it came in handy during my Western Civilization Class at a community College and I was right too so I know that wasn't biased! LOL!!


I've studied the battle, read the book War Without Hate for a good analysis of El Alamein, and the defensive battle before it (Alam el Halfa). Exactly where did Monty get Lucky, he simply outfought Rommel, fair and straight.

hmmm. I'll see if Walden's has this book. If not, I'll try Borders. They are the 2 closest bookstores to me at the moment. Thanks for giving me a title of a book to read.

And how would more forces be sent, let's not forget the entire Afrika Corps was only 2 Panzer and a Motorized division strong, and they couldn't even keep them supplied. This is one of Rommel's great flaws that made him an excellent tactical commander, but an abysmal strategic commander, he did not recognize the problems of his supply situation. The Regia Marine could not keep the current force supplied, and had no hope of either delivering more forces, or keeping them supplied. The Axis already had too many troops deployed in North Africa. Monty could have had an even more crushing success had more divisions been present.

This is most undoubtedly true. However, he was one of the best tank commanders. Even Patton admired Rommel and that is no easy feat. Admired him but then again dispised him because he was a Germany.



In hindsight, Patton's plan was the better of the two, but the more ambitious, and therefore, more susceptible to disaster. But that he went through with what he did is despicable, he had no regard for his soldiers.

Sometimes in war, you have to take risks. The US in the Pacific was prone to doing the ambitious. So was the Japanese but they didn't quite have the numbers to pull it of successfully except once and that was Pearl Harbor. As for having no regard, this is actually both accurate and not. He admired how his soldiers fight but then pushed them too hard. Your right it was dispicable but I think there would've been a massive uproar if they did anything.

It wasn't politics, Monty's plan was ismply the safer. The American forces had yet to prove themselves the equal of their Allies, they had just been revitalized by Patton after their disastrous first encounters with the Germans. There was little evidence to support that an American force could operate on it's own so far from any help.

Ok it was a combination of both politcs and which plan was safter. I will agree with what you say because it is mostly true. We've hardly been in the fight long enough to do much good when things started to go the Allies way.

A lot less, since he would be moving together with an allied force (he would be devalued to a covering force really), and at a pace a lot more methodical and paced than his race from Palermo to Messina.

Well you could make a case that it would be and you could make a case that it wouldn't be. In war, nothing is certain. One plan may look safer than another but sometimes the most boldest plan is what the enemy would least suspect. Besides, Monty got bogged down on his way to Messina I think.

It was not becuase of the German defenses, it was becuase of a large series of things that went wrong. Almost everything that could go wrong, did on Omaha. Unlike most beaches, Omaha had not been properly bombarded by Naval Artillery, and like most beaches, the Bombers had overshot their targets on the beach. But that is only the beginning, the DD tanks to support Omaha floundered and sank, and horrible tides ripped open many of the landing craft. Coupled with a withdrawal of close Naval support, Omaha became the slaughter it was.

Ok I will accept that I was wrong here.

Against.... what? Until he turned to close the Falaise Gap, he was not facing serious German resistance since the breakout at Avranches (acheived in large part becuase of the American First Army).

Read Operation Cobra. It is a very fascinating account.

He did know how to use his forces, but he also was over-ambitious, such as he proposal for a much wider encirclement at Falaise. Had his plan been adopted, the German Mortain counter-attack may have succeeded, and left the Third Army stranded in it's own pocket, cutoff from either the Canadian First or American First Armies.

This is probably so. I will say that. Besides, the counter-attack still almost succeeded.



He had shifted his HQ to the Naval Academy near Kiel, which was closer to the British Armies than the Soviet, so he treated with them, eventually securing the surrender of German forces facing the British, and later with SHAEF at Rheims, for the full surrender (Since Monty, surprisingly, refused to accept the surrender of the entire German Army).

Now why did Monty refuse the Surrender of the entire German Army?



Most Russian Experts agree, the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself, the US had a part in it, but the self-destructiveness of it's own system is what did it in, not the US. I'm not sure what encyclopedias you are reading, but most that carefully look at the subject, realize the same thing.

I was just saying that the US pushed the Soviet Union to Collapse. I'm not saying that we were the main cause of it.

This has actually been fun The Sword and Sheild. Thanks for giving me somethings to think about for the future as well as a title of the book. I love debating history in this type of fashon.

Why I would not like to be in the American military:

Major conflicts in the last 100 years:

WWI: Late
WWII: Late
Korea: Won
Vietnam: Lost
Gulf war: Unfinished
Afghanistan: Won??
Iraq: Won??

(For the latter two - if so, what does victory mean?)

"War" on terror: Losing



WW1-I think that France and England would have won alone, but it was close, and the US significantly speed it up, and lessened casualties.

WW2-There was just a post a while ago with many people arguing about whether or not it was right for the US to go into ww2, and the consensus, including that from some of the same people now disagreeing with themselves, was that the Allies wouldnt have won without the US. Even Churchill knew this. The only possible way would have been the Russians, but they had taken heavy losses in the defense of their own country.

France had already surrendered, so really, we didnt fight with the French, so the person who argued that America only wins with the French is wrong. The majority of the D-day landings were Americans, but I do have to give thanks to the British and Canadians, and the comanding officer for it was American.

The USSR did take Berlin, but I believe they wouldnt have if Germany had been able to focus more of its troops against Russia instead of against both the Russians and the combined American/British/Canadian assault from the coast.

Korea:won-cant argue there

Vietnam:although I consider this a loss, techniqly, this is a win, as we prevented South Vietnam from falling, and it only fell after we left. However, we could have had a solid victory, as we started winning the war under Nixon. However the Democrat controlled Congress voted against many imprivisions, and eventually forced the President to recall the forces.

And another technicaulity-the Vietnam war is really a theater of the cold war, which the US did eventually end up winning. I believe that the USSR would have self destructed eventually without Reagan, but he helped speed the collapse up quite a few decades.

The First Gulph War was won, as our objective was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. I believe that Bush the elder should have continued on to remove Saddam, but he didnt. However, the First Gulph War is not still going on, and is a win for the US.

Afganistan:We accomplished our major goal, by eliminating the Taliban and bringing democrarcy to the country, out secondary goal, capturing Saddam, is getting closer and closer, as seen in this article http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84T2OUO0.html

2nd Gulph War: We accomplished our objectives of freeing Iraq, and capturing Saddam, and we are now in the stages of mopping up the resistance, most of which is not from Iraqi's. but instead from our countries such as Syria.

I would also like to question people who's only arguement against America is that they claim Bush is stupid and retarted. Bush may not be a politcal genius like Clinton, but even if your dad is a small time politician when you are applying to college, you have to be have some smarts to get into Yale. Bush knows enough to put himself around knowledgable advisors, and he knows how to run a country.

At least we got the year right! That is the most important thing! :)

Indeed, I suppose it could've been worse, we could've said 1836, the year of the Texan-Mexican War.


You are right and when Americans landed it helped them form a better plan with fresher troops. Germany crumbled when the attack occured. Your right, the Germans was on the verge of defeat. Sometimes I wonder why we got involved but I can see why we did.

Undoubtedly Foch was greatly delighted to have American forces at his command (American divisions were just huge, 28,000 men compared to the average 5-6,000 for French, and 2-3,000 for German divisions), it gave him more options concerning where to launch the final Allied assaults to drive Germany from France. America's entry into the war also greatly demoralized the last die-hards for Germany's continuation of the war, since while the French and British were tapped out for manpower, the US was fresh and burgeoning with recruits. Some people have attributed this to Ludendorff's last minute indecisiveness on whether or not to attack the French at the Marne, or throw everything he had at the British (who were on the verge of breaking in the North), in the end his indecisiveness was the deciding factor in Kaiserschlacht's defeat.



Spelling is not my forte. LOL

Peleliu is particularly hard to spell, since most people think it is either Pelelu, or Pelelieu, but it's correct spelling is an enigma.



Yes I know it was the allied North African Landings. I've studied WWII though I will admit I've studied the Pacific more indepth than Europe.

On the whole, I've studied the ETO more, but I have extensive studies in the PTO, especially this year I've been trying to balance it out.


True they weren't biligerent towards us but definetely to the Brits because of what they did to the French fleet in Algeria I believe it was. The Brits destroyed the French Fleet so that it did not fall into the hands of the Nazis. Thanks again for supplying some info that I have forgotten. As I've said, I'm more partial to the Pacific than Europe.

The attack on the French Atlantic Squadron (which had evacuated the Atlantic following the Fall of France) was in Algeria, at Mers-El-Kebir, outside Oran (the attack I mentioned). 6,000 Frenchmen died, and their newest and most prized battleships were destroyed/damaged.



No wonder we object to having foreign commmanders incharge of US Troops. When we do, we get slaughtered! LOL! Patton did revitalize the US Forces when it was badly needed but you are right in the rest of you said too.

I dislike Patton immensely, but I will give him that he was the man the US Army needed after the disaster that the first battles in the Atlas Mountains were.



hmmm. I'll see if Walden's has this book. If not, I'll try Borders. They are the 2 closest bookstores to me at the moment. Thanks for giving me a title of a book to read.

It may be under it's initial name The Battle of El Alamein, its by John Bierman and Colin Smith, it's name was changed becuase it is actually a narrative of the entire Desert War, not just El Alamein.



This is most undoubtedly true. However, he was one of the best tank commanders. Even Patton admired Rommel and that is no easy feat. Admired him but then again dispised him because he was a Germany.

Rommel was undoubtedly one of the best tactical commanders of the war, arguably the best divisional commander, but he was simply not a Strategic commander like Eisenhower or Manstein.


Sometimes in war, you have to take risks. The US in the Pacific was prone to doing the ambitious. So was the Japanese but they didn't quite have the numbers to pull it of successfully except once and that was Pearl Harbor.

11 Divisions against the British and Dutch Empires, and the US forces in the Pacific, now that's what I call cajones.

Ok it was a combination of both politcs and which plan was safter. I will agree with what you say because it is mostly true. We've hardly been in the fight long enough to do much good when things started to go the Allies way.

Well, we proved ourselves equal on Sicily (at terrible cost), and then on Italy (but again, horrible leadership and ego got in the way, this time with far more disastrous results).

Well you could make a case that it would be and you could make a case that it wouldn't be. In war, nothing is certain. One plan may look safer than another but sometimes the most boldest plan is what the enemy would least suspect. Besides, Monty got bogged down on his way to Messina I think.

According to Monty, the reason he was bogged down was becuase he was facing stouter Axis resistance in worse terrain (true) and Patton was not supporting him (Not true, to a degree). Of course, Monty was no less of an egomaniac than Patton, so his version of events is just as slanted.



Ok I will accept that I was wrong here.

You weren't wrong, just not completely right, the German defenses themselves (The bunkers, beach defenses) were not any different than any other beach, but the German defenders themselves were the best troops facing any of the Allied landings, composed of second-line (as opposed to third-line) and first-line soldiers.



This is probably so. I will say that. Besides, the counter-attack still almost succeeded.

This is again an example of Patton's plans leading to greater results (In this case, the whole of Army Group B, instead of only what didn't escape), but this time, it is almost gauranteed to cause disaster, since it would cuase the US VIIth Corps to defend it alone, on a huge front, while Haislip's Corps went further east from Le Mans, instead of taking Argentan. Of course, Patton's plans weren't always horrible ideas, his offensive plans for post-Liberation of France was the right idea, Monty's idea was for once the more ambitious one (and in the end, a disaster).



Now why did Monty refuse the Surrender of the entire German Army?

Even he must've realized the uproar that would have followed him accepting the German Army's surrender, rather than the Supreme Allied Commander. A rare moment of clarity for his otherwise egomanical attitude, I think Patton would've come to the same conclusion too, the only egomaniacal General I can see accepting the full german surrender would be Clark.





I was just saying that the US pushed the Soviet Union to Collapse. I'm not saying that we were the main cause of it.

Ok, in which case I agree.

This has actually been fun The Sword and Sheild. Thanks for giving me somethings to think about for the future as well as a title of the book. I love debating history in this type of fashon.

I enjoy historical debate as well, and have enjoyed this, especially when it is as professional as this one has been. The only others such an occurence has happened with are Roach-Busters and Purly Euclid. By the way, you wouldn't have happened to have read a book called Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire would you have? I'm trying to remember the author's name, but I can't, and am unable to locate my copy of the book.

In response to the original thread, here is another thing about the French, part of a popular "Know Thy Enemy" category at www.imao.us it is in t-shirt form!


http://thoseshirts.com/images/imaofr600.gif

WW2-There was just a post a while ago with many people arguing about whether or not it was right for the US to go into ww2, and the consensus, including that from some of the same people now disagreeing with themselves, was that the Allies wouldnt have won without the US. Even Churchill knew this. The only possible way would have been the Russians, but they had taken heavy losses in the defense of their own country.

France had already surrendered, so really, we didnt fight with the French, so the person who argued that America only wins with the French is wrong. The majority of the D-day landings were Americans, but I do have to give thanks to the British and Canadians, and the comanding officer for it was American.

While I agree on the point about US intervention being crucial to Allied Victory, your D-Day statements are somewhat flawed. The D-Day Landings were actually split 50/50 between the Americans and the British/Commonwealth/Free Forces (if you count the Airborne Divisions, if not, than America has a minority). And the commanding officer of D-Day itself was actually a Briton, Bernard Montgomery, he was the commander of the assault, and that battle until late July. The entire plan, makeup of force, and general battle outline was made by an American though, Eisenhower, but the battle itself was commanded by Montgomery until late July.

Indeed, I suppose it could've been worse, we could've said 1836, the year of the Texan-Mexican War.

That would've been worse *shudders at the thought*


Undoubtedly Foch was greatly delighted to have American forces at his command (American divisions were just huge, 28,000 men compared to the average 5-6,000 for French, and 2-3,000 for German divisions), it gave him more options concerning where to launch the final Allied assaults to drive Germany from France. America's entry into the war also greatly demoralized the last die-hards for Germany's continuation of the war, since while the French and British were tapped out for manpower, the US was fresh and burgeoning with recruits. Some people have attributed this to Ludendorff's last minute indecisiveness on whether or not to attack the French at the Marne, or throw everything he had at the British (who were on the verge of breaking in the North), in the end his indecisiveness was the deciding factor in Kaiserschlacht's defeat.

Amazing how one little detail can change the course of war isn't it?



Peleliu is particularly hard to spell, since most people think it is either Pelelu, or Pelelieu, but it's correct spelling is an enigma.

So undoubtably true.



On the whole, I've studied the ETO more, but I have extensive studies in the PTO, especially this year I've been trying to balance it out.

My room mate here at the university I belong too has studied ETO as well. I'm somewhat versed in it but not as much as I should be. I'm starting to get more info in on it. It is better to have the balance of the two though. Makes it easier to learn history and to debate as well. :)


The attack on the French Atlantic Squadron (which had evacuated the Atlantic following the Fall of France) was in Algeria, at Mers-El-Kebir, outside Oran (the attack I mentioned). 6,000 Frenchmen died, and their newest and most prized battleships were destroyed/damaged.

Well at least I remembered what happened! LOL!! That's no easy feat for someone that hasn't studied the European War in detail! :)



I dislike Patton immensely, but I will give him that he was the man the US Army needed after the disaster that the first battles in the Atlas Mountains were.

Well I actually do like Patton. I like his fighting Style.



It may be under it's initial name The Battle of El Alamein, its by John Bierman and Colin Smith, it's name was changed becuase it is actually a narrative of the entire Desert War, not just El Alamein.

I'll keep this in mind.


Rommel was undoubtedly one of the best tactical commanders of the war, arguably the best divisional commander, but he was simply not a Strategic commander like Eisenhower or Manstein.

A tactical commander he was and he was great at it. As for Strategic commander, in this I will believe you.


11 Divisions against the British and Dutch Empires, and the US forces in the Pacific, now that's what I call cajones.

True but in the end, they over extended themselves then had a series of bad breaks and plans that didn't go according to plan. To much best case and not enough worse case scenerios.

Well, we proved ourselves equal on Sicily (at terrible cost), and then on Italy (but again, horrible leadership and ego got in the way, this time with far more disastrous results).

Yea Italy was a disaster. Leadership problems and bad strategy.

According to Monty, the reason he was bogged down was becuase he was facing stouter Axis resistance in worse terrain (true) and Patton was not supporting him (Not true, to a degree). Of course, Monty was no less of an egomaniac than Patton, so his version of events is just as slanted.

Two prima donas here. Monty and Patton. Both were good and both tried to outdue eachother. In the end though, I think patton won this contest IMHO.



You weren't wrong, just not completely right, the German defenses themselves (The bunkers, beach defenses) were not any different than any other beach, but the German defenders themselves were the best troops facing any of the Allied landings, composed of second-line (as opposed to third-line) and first-line soldiers.

:) So we were both right. LOL!



This is again an example of Patton's plans leading to greater results (In this case, the whole of Army Group B, instead of only what didn't escape), but this time, it is almost gauranteed to cause disaster, since it would cuase the US VIIth Corps to defend it alone, on a huge front, while Haislip's Corps went further east from Le Mans, instead of taking Argentan. Of course, Patton's plans weren't always horrible ideas, his offensive plans for post-Liberation of France was the right idea, Monty's idea was for once the more ambitious one (and in the end, a disaster).

Yea that would be a Bridge to Far I believe. It is detailed in the book, Operation Cobra. I don't think that was a wise move on the allies part to do what they did.




Even he must've realized the uproar that would have followed him accepting the German Army's surrender, rather than the Supreme Allied Commander. A rare moment of clarity for his otherwise egomanical attitude, I think Patton would've come to the same conclusion too, the only egomaniacal General I can see accepting the full german surrender would be Clark.

OUCH!! Though I do think that General Clark would've accepted the surrender, Patton and Monty both had enough brains not too.





Ok, in which case I agree.

:)

I enjoy historical debate as well, and have enjoyed this, especially when it is as professional as this one has been. The only others such an occurence has happened with are Roach-Busters and Purly Euclid. By the way, you wouldn't have happened to have read a book called Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire would you have? I'm trying to remember the author's name, but I can't, and am unable to locate my copy of the book.

No I haven't but I do have the Book the Pacific Campaign I believe it is called. It details the history of the Pacific War. From the start of it till its conclusion. It is a very interesting book. I'll look for "Downfall" too. Sounds like an interesting read. And thanks for the compliment :)

While I agree on the point about US intervention being crucial to Allied Victory, your D-Day statements are somewhat flawed. The D-Day Landings were actually split 50/50 between the Americans and the British/Commonwealth/Free Forces (if you count the Airborne Divisions, if not, than America has a minority). And the commanding officer of D-Day itself was actually a Briton, Bernard Montgomery, he was the commander of the assault, and that battle until late July. The entire plan, makeup of force, and general battle outline was made by an American though, Eisenhower, but the battle itself was commanded by Montgomery until late July.

Wrong about Montgomery. Ike was actually incharge of all Allied forces. Monty had control of the D-Day invasion but the Go/No-go originated with General Dwight D. Eisenhower. General Montgomery might've lead the forces on D-Day, but he himself was answerable to General Eisenhower.

- Gallic Wars

- Lost. In a war whose ending
foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered
by of all things, an Italian.

The gauls were not French. Also, does anyone remember who sacked Rome in 390 BCE?

Sure. Extreme and effective. Deal with it. It is nothing but the truth.

Like I give a rat's ass. Read the bottom two lines of my first post. If you can't take a joke then first eject that 3,5" rod of iron out of your arse and read it again.

And I am now convinced of the fact that humour no longer has a place on NS.

boyu i read the wholepage thread
first: some people laughing
then: historical corrections
next: people started being patrioting and aguing there country
after that: IT got BLODDY :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :fluffle:

AHHHHH!!!!

Listen up guys!!!!!!!!!!

I am an Australian, I am proud of my Nation, proud of its accomplishments. We have been in every war since our inseption, from the Boer War to the current Gulf War. I love my Nation, however unlike most of you people (not just Americans, but you Americans should listen up) I would never bash another Nation.

You Americans who bash France, you are nothing but Cowards, you know nothing of war. You bash a war where French soldiers died for their country, sadly they lost, but who the **** Cares? They are as much hero's as a US soldier storming Omaha beach!

You Americans are really sad, that you would lower yourselves to the level of pitty thugs, gutless cowards, for shame!

To those non Americans, you bash America, well you are as much a coward as those Americans I was pointing out.

All of you need to grow up and act your ages, and all of you should stop being arrogrant Pigs!

AHHHHH!!!!

Listen up guys!!!!!!!!!!

I am an Australian, I am proud of my Nation, proud of its accomplishments. We have been in every war since our inseption, from the Boer War to the current Gulf War. I love my Nation, however unlike most of you people (not just Americans, but you Americans should listen up) I would never bash another Nation.

You Americans who bash France, you are nothing but Cowards, you know nothing of war. You bash a war where French soldiers died for their country, sadly they lost, but who the **** Cares? They are as much hero's as a US soldier storming Omaha beach!

You Americans are really sad, that you would lower yourselves to the level of pitty thugs, gutless cowards, for shame!

To those non Americans, you bash America, well you are as much a coward as those Americans I was pointing out.

All of you need to grow up and act your ages, and all of you should stop being arrogrant Pigs!How come the Boer War was the business of any Australian soldier? And there was surely no heroism in storming Omaha Beach, it was only the over-late and extremely costly correction of the weak and wrong foreign policy of the decade before: the west had hoped far to long that Hitler could serve as a bulwark against communism.

How come the Boer War was the business of any Australian soldier? And there was surely no heroism in storming Omaha Beach, it was only the over-late and extremely costly correction of the weak and wrong foreign policy of the decade before: the west had hoped far to long that Hitler could serve as a bulwark against communism.

First of, the Boer War was Australia's business because it was a British War. We were still a British Colony, not a full independent country. The Australian soldiers fought for the crown, they were Hero's, the only criminals were the people who sent them there.

And the same goes for Omaha, the Soldiers who fought there, as with every other war, they are all hero's, nothing less.

First of, the Boer War was Australia's business because it was a British War. We were still a British Colony, not a full independent country. The Australian soldiers fought for the crown, they were Hero's, the only criminals were the people who sent them there.

And the same goes for Omaha, the Soldiers who fought there, as with every other war, they are all hero's, nothing less.No soldier will be a hero ever. War produces only murderers but not heroes in any meaning. And people who go to war just because they are commanded to go but do not have a personal interest or even understanding in the war's aim are not heroes but plain human trash, nothing less.

BTW the plural of "hero" is "heroes", "hero's" is a genitive. As one from a former British colony you should know that.

No soldier will be a hero ever. War produces only murderers but not heroes in any meaning. And people who go to war just because they are commanded to go but do not have a personal interest or even understanding in the war's aim are not heroes but plain human trash, nothing less.

BTW the plural of "hero" is "heroes", "hero's" is a genitive. As one from a former British colony you should know that.

Ah so I guess you have never ever had a family member go off to fight a war? You know what, I have, my Great Grandfather was in the Boer War, my Pop was in World War 2, my God father in Vietnam. You know what, unlike you I believe...no wait I know that they did something so harsh, they risked their lives so I and my fellow Australians (not to mention the rest of the world could be free)

These type of men fight a war, they risk their lives, some sacrifice it, you know why? So that you don't have to, so you can wake up and continue to be a coward. You are alive because people like my Great Grandfather, my Pop, my Godfather, and many good men like them gave something you don't have the balls to. When you wake up, you think of the people who didn't wake up so that you could.

And the spelling mistake, sue me I am tired.

Ah so I guess you have never ever had a family member go off to fight a war? You know what, I have, my Great Grandfather was in the Boer War, my Pop was in World War 2, my God father in Vietnam. You know what, unlike you I believe...no wait I know that they did something so harsh, they risked their lives so I and my fellow Australians (not to mention the rest of the world could be free)

These type of men fight a war, they risk their lives, some sacrifice it, you know why? So that you don't have to, so you can wake up and continue to be a coward. You are alive because people like my Great Grandfather, my Pop, my Godfather, and many good men like them gave something you don't have the balls to. When you wake up, you think of the people who didn't so that you could.

And the spelling mistake, sue me I am tired.One does not need balls to risk the own life in a war, all you need is a will to submission. And there is never heroism in killing another country's people.
And your "spelling" mistake is rather a knowledge mistake.

I've never been as proud to be french as now that I've read this.
France has really a good track record in human rights and of saving lives instead of fighting for nothing.
Unfortunately, it is not all true. There was many wars in which the french did kill a lot of people and I'm really ashamed of that.

One does not need balls to risk the own life in a war, all you need is a will to submission. And there is never heroism in killing another country's people.
And your "spelling" mistake is rather a knowledge mistake.

May I ask, where are you from?

And if your nation ever came under attack, or risk from attack and your nations leader sent soldiers, say your brother or father said they would go and fight. Would you hold them as cowards or Human trash?

also let me ask, do you take your freedom for granted? Because no doubt you do, I guess you ignore the many men whom died so you could enjoy it. Do you say to yourself "Gee it's great to be free"?, if so ever wonder how you got that freedom?

You are the worse kind of Coward known to man, I bet you couldn't handle it if your freedom was stripped from you, then again if it were about to be, Some Good and honest men, nothing short of complete heroes would stand up and take your place in war to make sure you were able to enjoy your freedom as you take for granted now. Right now you are behind your computer, calling the soldiers who fought so you could be there right now "Human Trash" - your pathetic, a weak person, who couldn't stand up for what is right if your life depended on it.

One does not need balls to risk the own life in a war, all you need is a will to submission. And there is never heroism in killing another country's people.
And your "spelling" mistake is rather a knowledge mistake.

and the spelling mistake, I tell you what, when you work a 12hour shift, not to mention the four hours before that helping a friend fix his computer, you can tell me about spelling mistakes.

and the spelling mistake, I tell you what, when you work a 12hour shift, not to mention the four hours before that helping a friend fix his computer, you can tell me about spelling mistakes.And you call that freedom?

May I ask, where are you from?

And if your nation ever came under attack, or risk from attack and your nations leader sent soldiers, say your brother or father said they would go and fight. Would you hold them as cowards or Human trash?

also let me ask, do you take your freedom for granted? Because no doubt you do, I guess you ignore the many men whom died so you could enjoy it. Do you say to yourself "Gee it's great to be free"?, if so ever wonder how you got that freedom?

You are the worse kind of Coward known to man, I bet you couldn't handle it if your freedom was stripped from you, then again if it were about to be, Some Good and honest men, nothing short of complete heroes would stand up and take your place in war to make sure you were able to enjoy your freedom as you take for granted now. Right now you are behind your computer, calling the soldiers who fought so you could be there right now "Human Trash" - your pathetic, a weak person, who couldn't stand up for what is right if your life depended on it.Which freedom r u talking about?
I'm not a coward, but I'm not stupid. I could stand for what is right, but my country is not always right you know?

Which freedom r u talking about?
I'm not a coward, but I'm not stupid. I could stand for what is right, but my country is not always right you know?

Wait, the message wasn't directed at you. But if you say so, when you wake up, do you fight a war? No, because the war has already been fought, some man gave his life up so you didn't have to.

And you call that freedom?

No, I call it hard work

May I ask, where are you from?

And if your nation ever came under attack, or risk from attack and your nations leader sent soldiers, say your brother or father said they would go and fight. Would you hold them as cowards or Human trash?

also let me ask, do you take your freedom for granted? Because no doubt you do, I guess you ignore the many men whom died so you could enjoy it. Do you say to yourself "Gee it's great to be free"?, if so ever wonder how you got that freedom?

You are the worse kind of Coward known to man, I bet you couldn't handle it if your freedom was stripped from you, then again if it were about to be, Some Good and honest men, nothing short of complete heroes would stand up and take your place in war to make sure you were able to enjoy your freedom as you take for granted now. Right now you are behind your computer, calling the soldiers who fought so you could be there right now "Human Trash" - your pathetic, a weak person, who couldn't stand up for what is right if your life depended on it.Have you ever been to a European city destroyed by war, or to a Vietnamese village completely erased? A coward is he who ambushes civilians and kills thousands by dropping bombs from a plane. A coward is he who kills an enemy he does not even know. Was there heroism in dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima? Or is there heroism in targeting wedding parties in Iraq?

Yes. :D

Have you ever been to a European city destroyed by war, or to a Vietnamese village completely erased? A coward is he who ambushes civilians and kills thousands by dropping bombs from a plane. A coward is he who kills an enemy he does not even know. Was there heroism in dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima? Or is there heroism in targeting wedding parties in Iraq?

*Sigh* of course, how could I forget, every soldier whom fought for my freedom, every soldier who fought for your freedom was nothing but a Coward whom gunned down civilians. You talk so much crap, you don't know war, you don't know nothing of what you speak. In fact your so sad, that it is pointless to debate. Move to some Islamic country, tell them you are Christian and have your freedoms removed, if your lucky. After all they might kill you, then when you have lost your freedoms you will see that you have taken them for granted, did you fight for your freedom? No, you are a coward hippy who wouldn't fight for anything.

Wait, the message wasn't directed at you. But if you say so, when you wake up, do you fight a war? No, because the war has already been fought, some man gave his life up so you didn't have to.
No they gave up their life for nothing.

From reading this topic, I can make this following summary:

Americans are religiously patriotic, and consider themselves superior to everyone else.

British don't particularly give a penguin about how well their country is doing, but they like annoying americans by playing on their patriotism.

Most of the world is anti-american at the moment... as long as anti-american means anyone who doesn't think that they're as superior or as successful as the americans claim.

Americans hate being stereotyped as stupid, or for the British to use the term 'yank' in what they believe to be the wrong context

Canadians and Norwegians have a good sense of humour. :)

Considering the original point of the topic was a humourous look at the french's military record, I think we've completely lost the plot here.

*Sigh* of course, how could I forget, every soldier whom fought for my freedom, every soldier who fought for your freedom was nothing but a Coward whom gunned down civilians. You talk so much crap, you don't know war, you don't know nothing of what you speak. In fact your so sad, that it is pointless to debate. Move to some Islamic country, tell them you are Christian and have your freedoms removed, if your lucky. After all they might kill you, then when you have lost your freedoms you will see that you have taken them for granted, did you fight for your freedom? No, you are a coward hippy who wouldn't fight for anything.In my case, I would fight for something, but certainly not for my country.

No they gave up their life for nothing.

Do you know how offensive that is to a war hero. Go down to the local RSL or whatever place you have, I hope they give you an arse kicking.

The front stalled outside of Paris. The Germans also kicked alot more ass than the US too against the French. All sides suffered heavy losses. The US Participation actually tip the scale against Germany and Germany Caved. Hell, Kaiser Bill tried to keep America out of the war. He feared us more the French or Brits.

Yep, but only because you had fresh troops.

The US:

Getting 4 planes kidnapped and steered into 2 skyscrapers and the Ministry of Defense. Despite having the most powerful military in the world, the sheer ineptness at preventing this disaster, proves that the US are at least as incapable.

Vietnam War ... lost.

US President 2001-2004 = shrub without a brain

US history = roughly 200 years

French history (or actually history of most other nations in the world) = variable, but in many cases several thousand years

US cultural achievements = McDonalds and Coca Cola, highest rate of obesity, self-induced overestimation syndrome coupled with considering themselves overimportant while being soft and squishy...

Lesson being: I'm glad that I am not US American.


Addendum: Canada is excempt from this list as it is clearly superior to the US, being on top of it and all that. Actually, I'm comfortable living in Germany. Seeing how many countries and armies it takes to defeat us, I'm proud of our strength as a people. Even though it didnt get us much benefit (yet) :p

Yep, thats the man! Exactly what I wanted to say all the day!

Do you know how offensive that is to a war hero. Go down to the local RSL or whatever place you have, I hope they give you an arse kicking.What's RSL?
Anyway, I hope they are more civilized than that because I pay taxes for them to have weapons. I expect them not to use those weapons against me.

What's RSL?
Anyway, I hope they are more civilized than that because I pay taxes for them to have weapons. I expect them not to use those weapons against me.

RSL is "Returned Servicemens League" - We have it in Australia for people in the Army, Navy and Airforce. Normally it is a building in the small towns with the roll of honour for those whom went to war from that town and if they died. I don't know if you have something like it.

Also where are you from? And I doubt you paid taxes back in 1914 when millions of men went and fought for your country, and those whom lived in it, at peace because of the men who died to protect it.

Oh I get it now, you're pissed because the US fire bombed your city. Maybe Germany shouldn't invade other countries and kill Jews too.

Yep, One could be pretty pissed about that. why didn't you firebomb Stalin when you had the chance?

French Foreing Legion sharpshooters (in English) : http://www.kepi.cncplusplus.com/Snipers/Snipers_at_FFL_info.htm (the whole site is updated regularly by the family of an Australian Légionnaire).


thoughts of a US citizen in the French Foreign Legion (not for right wing republican deserters/cowards) :
http://www.dlawrence.net/legion/legion.html

RSL is "Returned Servicemens League" - We have it in Australia for people in the Army, Navy and Airforce. Normally it is a building in the small towns with the roll of honour for those whom went to war from that town and if they died. I don't know if you have something like it.

Also where are you from? And I doubt you paid taxes back in 1914 when millions of men went and fought for your country, and those whom lived in it, at peace because of the men who died to protect it.I'm from France and I didn't get what you were saying, sorry, because I didn't know what the RSL was.
Anyway, those who fought in 1914 fought for nothing. Even they do not deny that. They were forced to do it but they knew it was for nothing and if they had the chance they would have left the military. I don't think it is offensive to say that. They fought for nothing. What they are telling us today is that we should avoid this kind of war at all cost.

I'm from France and I didn't get what you were saying, sorry, because I didn't know what the RSL was.
Anyway, those who fought in 1914 fought for nothing. Even they do not deny that. They were forced to do it but they knew it was for nothing and if they had the chance they would have left the military. I don't think it is offensive to say that. They fought for nothing. What they are telling us today is that we should avoid this kind of war at all cost.

Of course we should avoid any war at all cost, however what makes these men heroes is the fact that they stood up and marched off to protect the freedom of us today. Had they not, you and me could nay...would be speaking German or Japanese today. The fact is, when a war starts you have a choice, be a coward or do what is right, these men chose to do what was right. I would never let the enemy march into my town while I was still alive, I would fight until my last breath and bullet.

We did just as much work! God!! WWI who fought for Vimmy Ridge? We are in the G8!!!

True enough, but I´think its like this, I work really hard I'm out for work 12 hours a day, and yet none of my colleagues seems to notice that, they even ask me to do more work (almost more than I can handle in one day) so I guess someone has to be the unseen workhorse...

Australia held Toobrok and took Berasheeba (both are spelt wrong, I'd check it up, but you know...) Both feats the British couldn't pull off...

Of course we should avoid any war at all cost, however what makes these men heroes is the fact that they stood up and marched off to protect the freedom of us today. Had they not, you and me could nay...would be speaking German or Japanese today. The fact is, when a war starts you have a choice, be a coward or do what is right, these men chose to do what was right. I would never let the enemy march into my town while I was still alive, I would fight until my last breath and bullet.
I speack english.
What is right is to save your ass. What is stupid is going waste your life in a useless war.

Because I speak bad French. I wouldn't have a clue what they'd order me

Of course we should avoid any war at all cost, however what makes these men heroes is the fact that they stood up and marched off to protect the freedom of us today. Had they not, you and me could nay...would be speaking German or Japanese today. The fact is, when a war starts you have a choice, be a coward or do what is right, these men chose to do what was right. I would never let the enemy march into my town while I was still alive, I would fight until my last breath and bullet.But Germany as well as Japan have been endorsed by the nations around them before they became aggressive. So the wars were only the result of previous political neglect or even support. It's the same as with Iraq, which has been built up by the US during its conflict with neighboring Iran. Going to war to get rid of your former allies is not a sound reason to die for and thus makes it impossible for anybody in the respective force to become a "hero".

I speack english.
What is right is to save your ass. What is stupid is going waste your life in a useless war.

Wrong, right is protecting those who can't save their own lives or who are too lazy to. Let me guess, you think the Russians should have let those terrorist kill the children because you believe the right thing for the Russian Spec forces to do would be to save their own lives. "Stuff the children" - is that your motto? Because it sure as hell isn't mine. I am a Christian by faith and thus one of my duties is to protect the weak. When I join the Army if I am sent to a far off land to protect children I do not know, from a dictator I have never heard of in a country I have never seen then I will march off because those children can't protect themselves.

But Germany as well as Japan have been endorsed by the nations around them before they became aggressive. So the wars were only the result of previous political neglect or even support. It's the same as with Iraq, which has been built up by the US during its conflict with neighboring Iran. Going to war to get rid of your former allies is not a sound reason to die for and thus makes it impossible for anybody in the respective force to become a "hero".

How old are you? 12?

You don't know anyone in the Army/Air Force/Navy/etc... do you?

Let me guess, you believe Saddam was a "good guy", who never gassed his own people, children included. I guess if you walked down the street and saw these people beating up a child, you would ignore it because frankly that is how it seems to me going by your words.

Wrong, right is protecting those who can't save their own lives or who are too lazy to. Let me guess, you think the Russians should have let those terrorist kill the children because you believe the right thing for the Russian Spec forces to do would be to save their own lives. "Stuff the children" - is that your motto? Because it sure as hell isn't mine. I am a Christian by faith and thus one of my duties is to protect the weak. When I join the Army if I am sent to a far off land to protect children I do not know, from a dictator I have never heard of in a country I have never seen then I will march off because those children can't protect themselves.
Fighting for the children is noble.
Fighting for a country/religion is stupid.

How old are you? 12?

You don't know anyone in the Army/Air Force/Navy/etc... do you?

Let me guess, you believe Saddam was a "good guy", who never gassed his own people, children included. I guess if you walked down the street and saw these people beating up a child, you would ignore it because frankly that is how it seems to me going by your words.
So? Was it worth killing more 50 000 people so as to put Saddam to trial? (And more killings are to come)

Fighting for the children is noble.
Fighting for a country/religion is stupid.

When you fight for a country, that normally means you fight for its people, children included. If my country was invaded, I wouldn't wait for the chains and cells, I'd fight. Death before capture.

When you fight for a country, that normally means you fight for its people, children included. If my country was invaded, I wouldn't wait for the chains and cells, I'd fight. Death before capture.

Not in all cases.

Take Iraq for example. There they're just fighting.

So? Was it worth killing more 50 000 people so as to put Saddam to trial? (And more killings are to come)

Did you ever think of the hundreds of thousands of people we saved from Saddam?

In his time, you walk down the street and mention anything of the politics and you would be killed or tortured. But hey, I guess that is freedom right?

The fact is, most of the people killed have been killed by Saddam loyalist, while the US, and the other nations may have killed some people, the sad fact of war is this happens. While I cannot bring those people back, I can pray for them.

When you fight for a country, that normally means you fight for its people, children included. If my country was invaded, I wouldn't wait for the chains and cells, I'd fight. Death before capture.
Usually, when you fight for a country, you fight to put other people in chains and cells or in death. This is what it usually means.
For instance, WW1. We ended up with the treaty of Versailles. Great! It was well worth fighting for, wasn't it?

Not in all cases.

Take Iraq for example. There they're just fighting.

Your wrong sorry. While the war was started on a false pretense (which even pissed me off) Saddam is no longer in power. If the war ended tomorrow then it would be good, but the fact is, Saddam loyalist still think they can win, and they do this by killing innocent Iraqi people. These loyalist must be crushed if Iraq is to be free.

Did you ever think of the hundreds of thousands of people we saved from Saddam?

In his time, you walk down the street and mention anything of the politics and you would be killed or tortured. But hey, I guess that is freedom right?

The fact is, most of the people killed have been killed by Saddam loyalist, while the US, and the other nations may have killed some people, the sad fact of war is this happens. While I cannot bring those people back, I can pray for them.
Bullshit. Do you think the US military is firing sleeping bullets?
The US bombs are as deadly as the Saddam loyalist's ones.

Did you ever think of the hundreds of thousands of people we saved from Saddam?

In his time, you walk down the street and mention anything of the politics and you would be killed or tortured. But hey, I guess that is freedom right?

The fact is, most of the people killed have been killed by Saddam loyalist, while the US, and the other nations may have killed some people, the sad fact of war is this happens. While I cannot bring those people back, I can pray for them.
Did you ever think of the people killed after gulfwar 1? Some 50,000. When the US abandond them, leaving Saddam in power, after making them rise against him. Or are you one of those that thinks the US are "good guys"? White hats who fight for no other reason then noble, altruistic motives? Or are you one of those that believe because it was another administration we should just forget about it?

Your wrong sorry. While the war was started on a false pretense (which even pissed me off) Saddam is no longer in power. If the war ended tomorrow then it would be good, but the fact is, Saddam loyalist still think they can win, and they do this by killing innocent Iraqi people. These loyalist must be crushed if Iraq is to be free.Saddam loyalists? Like the mehdi army?

Usually, when you fight for a country, you fight to put other people in chains and cells or in death. This is what it usually means.
For instance, WW1. We ended up with the treaty of Versailles. Great! It was well worth fighting for, wasn't it?

You don't get it do you? WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanastan, 2nd Gulf War were all fought where a goal was to protect freedom (even if they stated out with a lie)

If they ever make a time machine, you can jump in it, and go back to Iraq in the 80's. I dare you to say anything about Saddam. You can walk around saying anything about your own government now, because many men made a sacrafice that you would never make

Wrong, right is protecting those who can't save their own lives or who are too lazy to. Let me guess, you think the Russians should have let those terrorist kill the children because you believe the right thing for the Russian Spec forces to do would be to save their own lives. "Stuff the children" - is that your motto? Because it sure as hell isn't mine. I am a Christian by faith and thus one of my duties is to protect the weak. When I join the Army if I am sent to a far off land to protect children I do not know, from a dictator I have never heard of in a country I have never seen then I will march off because those children can't protect themselves.

WHAT!? I think you misunderstood completely what he was saying. What is wrong is going to war over politics - WW1 was a prime example of this. When no side is 'evil' but they are fighting for resources, territory or whatever. And what is 'Iam a christian by faith' supposed to mean? Is there any other way to be a christian besides in faith?

I think you are rather presumptuous to state - in a war I would be a hero and fight until my last breath and bullet. WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! There is no way you could possibly say how you would be in the chaos of war. You might be one of those people who suffers from shellshock, you don't know until you're there.

War is terrible and a waste of resources and more importantly people's lives.
However, all the Yanks, English, French and even the Germans are sitting round their respective computers bragging about how their respective nation kicks ass. Get a grip you deluded disaffected would-be patriots.

America only one the war of revolution because of logistics - your army was terrible even George Washington admitted that.
England would probably have survived WW2 without a U.S. army (thanks to an inevitable Russian victory) but the war would have lasted longer and there would have been no western front.
Germany lost the both wars because of overwhelming men and resources facing them.
The French never liberated Paris as that tosser Charles de Galle claimed. The allies had the city surrounded and had the Axis in full retreat but allowed the French resistance to take the city. To the legendary de Galle this constituted a French liberation of all of Franch without any help whatsoever from the Allies. A maniac in denial. :confused:

Bullshit. Do you think the US military is firing sleeping bullets?
The US bombs are as deadly as the Saddam loyalist's ones.

Yes they are as deadly, but they don't try and kill the Iraqi's like the loyalist do. The loyalist go out with the intention to kill and maim as many Iraqi people as possible, women, children they don't care, as long as they kill something. Much like the Russian school seige.

You don't get it do you? WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanastan, 2nd Gulf War were all fought where a goal was to protect freedom (even if they stated out with a lie)

If they ever make a time machine, you can jump in it, and go back to Iraq in the 80's. I dare you to say anything about Saddam. You can walk around saying anything about your own government now, because many men made a sacrafice that you would never make
WW1? For freedom? In which way?
WW2... Well some of them were fighting for freedom, some other were fighting for their country, like the nazis who started the war "Deutschland uber alles". Those guyz were out of their mind.
Korea... Nothing to do with freedom. It's about political ideals.
Vietnam... The viet cong were fighting for their freedom. The US military was fighting for nothing.
Afghanistan... Which war are you talking about?
2nd Gulf war... For oil.

Did you ever think of the people killed after gulfwar 1? Some 50,000. When the US abandond them, leaving Saddam in power, after making them rise against him. Or are you one of those that thinks the US are "good guys"? White hats who fight for no other reason then noble, altruistic motives? Or are you one of those that believe because it was another administration we should just forget about it?

Of course I think of those killed because of Bush Sr's failers as President, I think Saddam should have been out of power 10 years ago, but heck 10 years ago I was only 8 years old. I couldn't really say anything then. And no, I don't always see the US as teh "good guys", is that all you can say?

Your debating is quite poor sorry...

Oh and I am not American either.

How old are you? 12?
You don't know anyone in the Army/Air Force/Navy/etc... do you?
Let me guess, you believe Saddam was a "good guy", who never gassed his own people, children included. I guess if you walked down the street and saw these people beating up a child, you would ignore it because frankly that is how it seems to me going by your words.No, Saddam is not a "good guy" but those who cast him down now should be the last to complain about that fact. And when Saddam was gassing his own people the west turned a blind eye because he was still an ally. And when Saddam was asking the US if he could go against Kuwait when the latter was trying to block his access to the Persian Gulf was it really surprising that he invaded Kuwait then?
I do, in fact, know some people of the US army and I must say that those are not people with the broadest ability of perception.
And I am actually slightly older than 12 and not just 18.

Yes they are as deadly, but they don't try and kill the Iraqi's like the loyalist do. The loyalist go out with the intention to kill and maim as many Iraqi people as possible, women, children they don't care, as long as they kill something. Much like the Russian school seige.Bullshit. The loyalists are trying to fight for what they think is their country. They're as mad as you.

WHAT!? I think you misunderstood completely what he was saying. What is wrong is going to war over politics - WW1 was a prime example of this. When no side is 'evil' but they are fighting for resources, territory or whatever. And what is 'Iam a christian by faith' supposed to mean? Is there any other way to be a christian besides in faith?

I think you are rather presumptuous to state - in a war I would be a hero and fight until my last breath and bullet. WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! There is no way you could possibly say how you would be in the chaos of war. You might be one of those people who suffers from shellshock, you don't know until you're there.

War is terrible and a waste of resources and more importantly people's lives.
However, all the Yanks, English, French and even the Germans are sitting round their respective computers bragging about how their respective nation kicks ass. Get a grip you deluded disaffected would-be patriots.

America only one the war of revolution because of logistics - your army was terrible even George Washington admitted that.
England would probably have survived WW2 without a U.S. army (thanks to an inevitable Russian victory) but the war would have lasted longer and there would have been no western front.
Germany lost the both wars because of overwhelming men and resources facing them.
The French never liberated Paris as that tosser Charles de Galle claimed. The allies had the city surrounded and had the Axis in full retreat but allowed the French resistance to take the city. To the legendary de Galle this constituted a French liberation of all of Franch without any help whatsoever from the Allies. A maniac in denial. :confused:

LOL I think you misunderstood completely what I was saying. When I said I was Christian by faith, I meant exactly that, not like Bush Jr, where he is a Christian by name only.

And please point out where I said I would be a "hero"? I never did, I did however point out that for the most part close to every soldier who has fought in war was, is, will always be a Hero. Be they stormed the beaches to free Europe on D-Day, or if they were killed by their own men in the jungles of Vietnam. They stood up for something we don't often think about, you know why we don't think about it? Because we have never been there. We stay at home, in our houses guarded by men who we don't know, who when they die we never hear about it.

And for the last time...I AM NOT AMERICAN!

LOL I think you misunderstood completely what I was saying. When I said I was Christian by faith, I meant exactly that, not like Bush Jr, where he is a Christian by name only.

And please point out where I said I would be a "hero"? I never did, I did however point out that for the most part close to every soldier who has fought in war was, is, will always be a Hero. Be they stormed the beaches to free Europe on D-Day, or if they were killed by their own men in the jungles of Vietnam. They stood up for something we don't often think about, you know why we don't think about it? Because we have never been there. We stay at home, in our houses guarded by men who we don't know, who when they die we never hear about it.

And for the last time...I AM NOT AMERICAN!The SS who burnt a church full of people?
Ghengis Khan's soldiers who raped and robed, they were fighting for a noble war, weren't they?

Bullshit. The loyalists are trying to fight for what they think is their country. They're as mad as you.

And how did you come up with the view that I am "Mad", and while they may be fighting for their country, I guess putting a bomb in a car and parking it in a crowded area is a good way about it. Hey I guess you support those terrorist who killed the children in that Russian school.

No soldier will be a hero ever. War produces only murderers but not heroes in any meaning. And people who go to war just because they are commanded to go but do not have a personal interest or even understanding in the war's aim are not heroes but plain human trash, nothing less.

BTW the plural of "hero" is "heroes", "hero's" is a genitive. As one from a former British colony you should know that.

Are you one of that people who spit upon the veterans and call them Babykillers?

Not that I mind if you were one of that people, I'm just curous...

LOL I think you misunderstood completely what I was saying. When I said I was Christian by faith, I meant exactly that, not like Bush Jr, where he is a Christian by name only.
And please point out where I said I would be a "hero"? I never did, I did however point out that for the most part close to every soldier who has fought in war was, is, will always be a Hero. Be they stormed the beaches to free Europe on D-Day, or if they were killed by their own men in the jungles of Vietnam. They stood up for something we don't often think about, you know why we don't think about it? Because we have never been there. We stay at home, in our houses guarded by men who we don't know, who when they die we never hear about it.
And for the last time...I AM NOT AMERICAN!So all German and Japanese soldiers are heroes, too?
And do you really believe that there is some kind of "front line" behind which we enjoy our security? That's complete nonsense. The front lines existing today are those that our governments have created.

WW1? For freedom? In which way?
WW2... Well some of them were fighting for freedom, some other were fighting for their country, like the nazis who started the war "Deutschland uber alles". Those guyz were out of their mind.
Korea... Nothing to do with freedom. It's about political ideals.
Vietnam... The viet cong were fighting for their freedom. The US military was fighting for nothing.
Afghanistan... Which war are you talking about?
2nd Gulf war... For oil.

World War one while much land taking was used, the fact is, Europe was at war. Britain and Germany were at war, and Europe was divided. Australia and Canada were thrown into protect the freedom of England and her Allies (France, etc)

World War 2, you bring up the Nazi's I can assure you, they needed to be beaten for the peace of Europe and the World. hence many nations stood up and said "enough is enough"

Korea - was about protecting the South, sadly Politics got in there.

Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism into the South. If it did, then Australia would be under threat. While the war could have been avoided, Communism had to be stopped.

Afghanistan - I won't go into the Soviet war with Afghanistan, however the current one, i.e. the WoT is about telling Terrorist that they won't win, they can try and shake us, but we won't fall to them. They can kill us, but they won't beat us.

The 2nd Gulf War, look, fact is Bush/Howard/Blair etc lied about WMD. I hated the lie, but I knew Saddam had to go. After seeing what he did to this people, I supported the War. But not for the reason we got sent.

Did you ever think of the hundreds of thousands of people we saved from Saddam?

In his time, you walk down the street and mention anything of the politics and you would be killed or tortured. But hey, I guess that is freedom right?

The fact is, most of the people killed have been killed by Saddam loyalist, while the US, and the other nations may have killed some people, the sad fact of war is this happens. While I cannot bring those people back, I can pray for them.

25 Million actually about the same as it is in Afghanistan! I for one know of what Saddam Hussein has done which is why I support Operation Iraqi Freedom 100%! My dad and uncle and a couple of cousins have fought in this war and my dad is slated to go back and he is looking forward to going back because he knows he is helping the people. Granted he doesn't want to leave my mom or my sister but its his duty and he's glad to do his duty.

Austrealite, Thanks for standing up for the people that can't defend themselves. I much appreciate this sense of fresh air on these forums. As for the killings, I've stated numerous times that Saddam has killed more than we have but the people on here don't see it.

Keep up the good work Austrealite.

And how did you come up with the view that I am "Mad", and while they may be fighting for their country, I guess putting a bomb in a car and parking it in a crowded area is a good way about it. Hey I guess you support those terrorist who killed the children in that Russian school.You're mad because you're a patriot. It is a mental illness.
Those terrorists are fighting for their freedom. They want their Chechnian country. I think they're mad.
The saddam loyalists are not using car bombs. I think you confuse the terrorist groups with the loyalists, but anyway... You have that guy, Ossama Ben Laden, he fought to liberate his country (Saudi Arabia) from the americans. He was a great patriot.

The SS who burnt a church full of people?
Ghengis Khan's soldiers who raped and robed, they were fighting for a noble war, weren't they?

Hense I said "FOR THE MOST PART", I wasn't talking about every single soldier who has fought in all the wars.

Are you one of that people who spit upon the veterans and call them Babykillers?
Not that I mind if you were one of that people, I'm just curous...Veterans are people I generally ignore, especially when they are veterans of pointless wars like Korea or Vietnam. And veterans of wars that were fought for ideological reasons and that almost exclusively targeted civilians will never have my appreciation, and the excuse "I just followed orders" will not find my acceptance ever.
BTW someone who killed a baby is a babykiller and it does not matter in which circumstances that happened.

25 Million actually about the same as it is in Afghanistan! I for one know of what Saddam Hussein has done which is why I support Operation Iraqi Freedom 100%! My dad and uncle and a couple of cousins have fought in this war and my dad is slated to go back and he is looking forward to going back because he knows he is helping the people. Granted he doesn't want to leave my mom or my sister but its his duty and he's glad to do his duty.

Austrealite, Thanks for standing up for the people that can't defend themselves. I much appreciate this sense of fresh air on these forums. As for the killings, I've stated numerous times that Saddam has killed more than we have but the people on here don't see it.

Keep up the good work Austrealite.

Yeah now I know what it is like debating to a brick wall. These people don't get it, they take what they have for granted. It is really sad what they have said about those men and women who gave everything so that they can be free. When I wake up and smell the fresh air, and look at the green grass, I know that I have the privilege of this because someone took my place in a war they didn't want to fight.

Veterans are people I generally ignore, especially when they are veterans of pointless wars like Korea or Vietnam. And veterans of wars that were fought for ideological reasons and that almost exclusively targeted civilians will never have my appreciation, and the excuse "I just followed orders" will not find my acceptance ever.
BTW someone who killed a baby is a babykiller and it does not matter in which circumstances that happened.

You ignore them, because you are nothing but an Ingorant arrorgant selfish child. My Godfather is a Vietnam Veteran, and a Hero. He will always be a Hero, unlike many Australian and American's he was lucky, he survived. Did he want to go to war? No, why did he go? To protect the people of South Vietnam. Plain and simple, he was only a teenager, like I am now. I have never thought of the horrors of war because I know good hard working decent blokes like him will always put their hand up to take my place.

Yeah now I know what it is like debating to a brick wall. These people don't get it, they take what they have for granted. It is really sad what they have said about those men and women who gave everything so that they can be free. When I wake up and smell the fresh air, and look at the green grass, I know that I have the privilege of this because someone took my place in a war they didn't want to fight.

No they don't get it. I get enough flak from Americans who say this is an illegal war because I support what we are doing. Trust me, even I'm somewhat poed that we haven't found WMD but you know what? I don't really care. When we found the Mass Graves, the Rape rooms, and Torture chambers, I didn't care what reasons we used. I still support this war 100% because it was something that needed to be done.

With me, though I do take what I have for granted, I have never forgotten those that died to give me what I have. Soldiers from the American Revolutionary war, War of 1812, The Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish/American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Panama, 1st Gulf war, and the Wot (Afghanistan and Iraq), I thank those that have given and preserved the freedom of my nation. I have visited the memorials and I thank every soldier that has died for my nation. Yes I am an American and a patriot of my nation. I would gladly fight for this country and die for this country if need be.

Keep up the good work my friend. I think there is only a few of us on here that has a better understanding of things then most people do. Your a friend in my book.

World War one while much land taking was used, the fact is, Europe was at war. Britain and Germany were at war, and Europe was divided. Australia and Canada were thrown into protect the freedom of England and her Allies (France, etc) WW1 was a war that all powers in Europe wanted. It was only a matter of time when it would start.

World War 2, you bring up the Nazi's I can assure you, they needed to be beaten for the peace of Europe and the World. hence many nations stood up and said "enough is enough"But why was no one standing up in the 10 years before the war?

Korea - was about protecting the South, sadly Politics got in there.That was a war purely led for ideological reasons.

Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism into the South. If it did, then Australia would be under threat. While the war could have been avoided, Communism had to be stopped.Australia under a threat by North Vietnamese? Get real!

Afghanistan - I won't go into the Soviet war with Afghanistan, however the current one, i.e. the WoT is about telling Terrorist that they won't win, they can try and shake us, but we won't fall to them. They can kill us, but they won't beat us.What? Afghanistan is now (outside Kabul) as it was before the Taliban were expelled. I would not call that a success. And Bin Laden has not been caught yet, has he? I would not call that a success as well.

The 2nd Gulf War, look, fact is Bush/Howard/Blair etc lied about WMD. I hated the lie, but I knew Saddam had to go. After seeing what he did to this people, I supported the War. But not for the reason we got sent.Saddam could only do what he did (e.g. to "his" people) due to the support he got from the West. And in the time between the last two Gulf wars he did nothing to anyone, bcause he just did not have the means.

No they don't get it. I get enough flak from Americans who say this is an illegal war because I support what we are doing. Trust me, even I'm somewhat poed that we haven't found WMD but you know what? I don't really care. When we found the Mass Graves, the Rape rooms, and Torture chambers, I didn't care what reasons we used. I still support this war 100% because it was something that needed to be done.

With me, though I do take what I have for granted, I have never forgotten those that died to give me what I have. Soldiers from the American Revolutionary war, War of 1812, The Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish/American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Panama, 1st Gulf war, and the Wot (Afghanistan and Iraq), I thank those that have given and preserved the freedom of my nation. I have visited the memorials and I thank every soldier that has died for my nation. Yes I am an American and a patriot of my nation. I would gladly fight for this country and die for this country if need be.

Keep up the good work my friend. I think there is only a few of us on here that has a better understanding of things then most people do. Your a friend in my book.

I agree with you 100% I am an Australian, a Patriot of my country, if called to defend her, I would go knowing that I fight for my family, and my fellow Australians. I have visited many memorials of ANZAC soldiers and to be honest I have shed tears while there. I thank every man and women who has served in the forces to keep my nation and the world safe.

You ignore them, because you are nothing but an Ingorant arrorgant selfish child. My Godfather is a Vietnam Veteran, and a Hero. He will always be a Hero, unlike many Australian and American's he was lucky, he survived. Did he want to go to war? No, why did he go? To protect the people of South Vietnam. Plain and simple, he was only a teenager, like I am now. I have never thought of the horrors of war because I know good hard working decent blokes like him will always put their hand up to take my place.You are completely rediculous, and after showing that picture that's a proven fact :D
And the Vietnam War was not fought to protect anyone. Have you ever been to school?

Yes they are as deadly, but they don't try and kill the Iraqi's like the loyalist do. The loyalist go out with the intention to kill and maim as many Iraqi people as possible, women, children they don't care, as long as they kill something. Much like the Russian school seige.

You mean like they don't tried to bomb two wedding's in afghania? Like they don't tried to shoot arabian reporters? Or like they don't wanted to rise the cancer rate in Iraq by over 30% percent by usung U238 Ammunition?

Sigh.

And there was such a nice historical discussion in this thread. Pity it had be sandwiched between flaming and general unpleasantness.

Also a pity that people don't recognize that the first post was a joke that's been around for at least ten years. Oh well. Locked.