Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
Originally posted by baff With the exception of the "hiding behind civilians" nonsense, I agree. Go Israel. Hizbollah are not hiding behind civilians, they are civilians. The civilians that die standing next to them are their friends and families who live with them. Hiusbollah isn't a military force living and working in a military camp. It's a civilian militia defending their homes. The idea that Hisbollah are deliberatelyt trying to get their families killed for news footage is laughable. Please readjust your propaganda filters.
First point.. Hezbollah is not a civilian militia! If there are "Civilians" that are friends with Hezbollah then they are not Civilians! They are Hezbollah!! Thus the HeZbos claiming that civilians dying is just propaganda! Since tey are Hezbos under civvie guise! If Hezbollah was a civvie militia they would not have started this conflict in the first place !! Killing 8 Israelis and kidnapping 2 doesnt sound much like a militia!! especially when they went into Israel proper to do it! I hope ISRAEL beats Hezbollah to no existance!! Then the US can work on IRAN. AND YES!! the UN is a worthless entity. When has a UN resolution been made that has actually been followed!
So you think Hisbollah is the national army of Lebanon? Or that they wear uniforms?
It's a militia. Made up of civilians with guns. No one pays them. They don't get a pension. The elected government of neither Lebanon, Syria nor Iran ordered them to kidnap Israeli's.
Like the farmers who fought against the Red coats in the Independance War or Sadr's men in Baghdad.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by honzolo
Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
Lets see France has a track record of fighting? Lets talk WWII! The germans took France within only a couple of weeks! Better yet lets talk vietnam! The french asked for help in Vietnam then stuck the US with the whole problem! Lets talk the UN resolution Food for Oil Trade Agreement! French opposed the US going into Irtaq because why??? They had side deals outside this UN trade Agreement for oil! FRANCE IS A FULL OF SHIAT COUNTRY WITH FULL OF SHIAT PEOPLE! Simply PUT! Go talk how great France is to someone who believes it! France is nothing more than a WHITE FLAG Islamic appeasement country! And yes the UN is still worthless!
Lets see France has a track record of fighting? Lets talk WWII! The germans took France within only a couple of weeks! Better yet lets talk vietnam! The french asked for help in Vietnam then stuck the US with the whole problem! Lets talk the UN resolution Food for Oil Trade Agreement! French opposed the US going into Irtaq because why??? They had side deals outside this UN trade Agreement for oil! FRANCE IS A FULL OF SHIAT COUNTRY WITH FULL OF SHIAT PEOPLE! Simply PUT! Go talk how great France is to someone who believes it! France is nothing more than a WHITE FLAG Islamic appeasement country! And yes the UN is still worthless!
Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).
The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.
I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.
Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by xpowderx
Lets see France has a track record of fighting? Lets talk WWII! The germans took France within only a couple of weeks! Better yet lets talk vietnam! The french asked for help in Vietnam then stuck the US with the whole problem! Lets talk the UN resolution Food for Oil Trade Agreement! French opposed the US going into Irtaq because why??? They had side deals outside this UN trade Agreement for oil! FRANCE IS A FULL OF SHIAT COUNTRY WITH FULL OF SHIAT PEOPLE! Simply PUT! Go talk how great France is to someone who believes it! France is nothing more than a WHITE FLAG Islamic appeasement country! And yes the UN is still worthless!
Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).
The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.
I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.
Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.
Yay, WWII time.
The Germans didn't "whup" the British, Russians, or Americans in WWII. In fact they're MAJOR DEFEAT iN Stalingraad to the Russians is a big part of their loss of the war. They hardly were "whupping" England, it was more of a stalemate. I don't know about you, but last I heard no German soldier ever put a foot on England (unless you count him falling to his death our of a fighter or bomber that was shot down). Similarly, the joint English and American forces "whupped" Rommels ass out of North Africa, which led to the invasion of France, in case you forgot.
Let's see, oh yes, Omaha Beach. I think you generally just mean D-Day, which was multiple beaches. Omaha was just one of them. Let's take a moment and actually consider the facts. Have you EVER heard of an army attacking a Heavily Fortified Position and an Entrenched Enemy without taking high casualties? I will guarantee you had the Germans attacked Omaha Beach and it was under the control of the Allies, they would have taken just as similar casualties.
And Jewish slave labor? Please...let's see evidence where America benefited from that. America stood out of the war as long as it did because of the population. If you knew history you would also know that Roosevelt had Congress pass several bills allowing America to send massive amounts of armaments and supplies to England, which post-WWI was illegal because of the countries desire to be neutral. The fact that he was able to do even that was quite a feat as the country was still deeply entrenched in its isolationist ideals.
I'm not trying to insult France, but they were quickly defeated by the Blitzkrieg tactics. Not because they weren't filling to fight, but they were so unprepared for a "modern" war they were crushed. They were still digging trenches in a time when modern (1930's modern) warfare made them obsolete. That's why they were defeated so quickly and easily by the Germans. To their credit though, the French Resistance were a real pain in the neck for the occupiers.
As for Vietnam, what happened was Vietnam was a colony of France. The northern Vietnamese and Southern Vietnamese citizens were fighting, however, because of political reasons (if I remember correctly). This is what led to the split of the country into North and South. As we know the North eventually decided "hey, let's invade the south" and France went to war. However, they asked America for help, who sent over military advisers.
Now, here's the nice part. The French leave, and leave America there by itself, after asking for help. More advisers are sent to South Vietnam to fight the communist North (remember this is during the Cold War), and eventually troops are sent over. China also sends troops and supplies to the North, as they also did with Korea, and so you have the war we all think of today.
Oh, and just for the record, I guarantee had France been attacked (modern terrorists now) there would have been quite a few American soldiers deployed. I'm not sure what this argument is about, I just thought I'd post some information. This isn't meant as a flame post.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by honzolo
Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
I'm sure Hezbollah is allowing filming of all the sites they launch rockets from too, right?
<<Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).>>
I would say that the US was where Europe is right now in the war on terror. Kidding ourselves that it was far away and it 'wasn't our war'. Eventually the States woke up.
<<The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.>>
Of the Brits, French and Russians, only one of them fell to the Germans. We know which one.
<<I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.>>
Come on, Baff. To say we 'wanted to kill Iraqi's' is just ludicrous. I know you disagree with the war in Iraq, but to say it was done just because we wanted to kill Iraqi's is over the top, and I'm sure you realize that. France opposed the war in Iraq primarily because they had too much money tied up in oil deals in violation of the UN sanctions. But then, so did the UN.
<<Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.>>
Once again, it was the reasons France did what they did that I have a problem with. I can't disagree that we can be ungrateful, but we certainly don't have a lock on that, by any means.
As far as your vacations go, you have every right to decide not to visit the States, and go to France. I, personally, have no desire to ever go to France. I will someday soon visit the UK, though. I like the Brits, even if I disagree with them on some things. I hope you enjoy your vacation.
We've had terrorism in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. The French have plenty of terrorism of their own to deal with. Daily. Terrorism has never been "far away" from Europe, it's always been right here. Unignorably so.
The French and most other Europeans are also in Afghanistan fighting your "War on Terror". It's the "Invasion of Iraq" they didn't attend. It really blows that you are also willing to forget this. They give their lives for your nation and you insult them. I cannot empahacise this enough.
I totally approve of the Iraq war. It suits me.
It doesn't suit the French though, it's against their national intrests. I don't call a man a coward because he is unwilling to shoot himself in the foot just because I asked him to. I call him smart.
The French had a load of contracts in Iraq, "Oil for Food" is peanuts. A scandal invented by Bush to spread a little muck around the U.N. after Anan called the invasion illegal. Standard Bush M.O. he does it all the time. Iraq owed France a lot of money, money which they will now never see.
The Americans wanted those trade contracts too. The French knew if they went to war with the U.S. they would still lose the contracts, so why bother? If someone is going to steal something from you, even if you can't stop them, you don't help them. They are also long time allies of Saddams regime, and unlike us, they have a history of not turning on their allies. You can trust the French. They have loyalty.
Do you really believe that oil contracts was not the reason America and Britain went to war? Not even a factor? No wonder you hate the French then.
You hate the French not because of their reasons for not going to war but because they made you look at your own reasons and you don't like what you see.
When you come to England, remember to tell strangers you are Canadian and not to talk politics in public places.
The Germans didn't "whup" the British, Russians, or Americans in WWII. In fact they're MAJOR DEFEAT iN Stalingraad to the Russians is a big part of their loss of the war. They hardly were "whupping" England, it was more of a stalemate. I don't know about you, but last I heard no German soldier ever put a foot on England (unless you count him falling to his death our of a fighter or bomber that was shot down). Similarly, the joint English and American forces "whupped" Rommels ass out of North Africa, which led to the invasion of France, in case you forgot.
Let's see, oh yes, Omaha Beach. I think you generally just mean D-Day, which was multiple beaches. Omaha was just one of them. Let's take a moment and actually consider the facts. Have you EVER heard of an army attacking a Heavily Fortified Position and an Entrenched Enemy without taking high casualties? I will guarantee you had the Germans attacked Omaha Beach and it was under the control of the Allies, they would have taken just as similar casualties.
And Jewish slave labor? Please...let's see evidence where America benefited from that. America stood out of the war as long as it did because of the population. If you knew history you would also know that Roosevelt had Congress pass several bills allowing America to send massive amounts of armaments and supplies to England, which post-WWI was illegal because of the countries desire to be neutral. The fact that he was able to do even that was quite a feat as the country was still deeply entrenched in its isolationist ideals.
I'm not trying to insult France, but they were quickly defeated by the Blitzkrieg tactics. Not because they weren't filling to fight, but they were so unprepared for a "modern" war they were crushed. They were still digging trenches in a time when modern (1930's modern) warfare made them obsolete. That's why they were defeated so quickly and easily by the Germans. To their credit though, the French Resistance were a real pain in the neck for the occupiers.
Oh, and just for the record, I guarantee had France been attacked (modern terrorists now) there would have been quite a few American soldiers deployed. I'm not sure what this argument is about, I just thought I'd post some information. This isn't meant as a flame post.
That's about it :P Enjoy.
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were well and truely Whupped.
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
Stalingrad is nowhere near the border with Germany, the Russians were totally whupped by the same army before they managed to turn it around. Half of Russia fell.
Jewish slave labour was used in Fords German factories. It's well documented.
France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Originally posted by baff The French had a load of contracts in Iraq, "Oil for Food" is peanuts. A scandal invented by Bush to spread a little muck around the U.N. after Anan called the invasion illegal. Standard Bush M.O. he does it all the time. Iraq owed France a lot of money, money which they will now never see.
Yeah I really admire the French for not wanting to topple a mass murderer so they could continue to get paid.
Saddam owed the French tons of money plain and simple. Do you think we really care about hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts when we have spent hundreds of billions on the war?
I think one of those hidden reasons you may be looking for is the fact Iraq stopped accepting Dollars for oil and switched to Euros instead. That kinda stuff really places the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency in serious danger. I don't blame them though for wanting to switch the dollar is really tanking since Clinton let China get their hooks into us with the Most Favored Nation Trading status and Bush hasn't had the balls to pull the hooks out because in the short term it would hurt a bit mostly the lower and middle class Americans that shop at Wal-Mart.
Oh and FYI Iran just recently switched from accepting dollars for oil to Euros are we starting to see a pattern yet?
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
A little thing called water and beaches make naval invasions an entirley different animal from attacking regular fortified positions. Comparing those two situations is like comparing apples and oranges.
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Its their own fault for having such a loose emigration policy. Your right about American troops and European cities not getting along though I can't think of any regulars trained for battle that enjoy playing soldier in an urban environment, and with those narrow street of yours our M1A2s would tear the place apart.
Originally posted by baff <<We've had terrorism in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. The French have plenty of terrorism of their own to deal with. Daily. Terrorism has never been "far away" from Europe, it's always been right here. Unignorably so.>> You're so right its not far away. In fact Europe is in far more danger from it than we are here. But they tend to take the route of appeasement more often than not. I disagree with that approach. It didn't work with Hitler and it won't work with Islamo-fascists who are far worse. <<The French and most other Europeans are also in Afghanistan fighting your "War on Terror". It's the "Invasion of Iraq" they didn't attend. It really blows that you are also willing to forget this. They give their lives for your nation and you insult them. I cannot empahacise this enough.>> Who forgot that? <<I totally approve of the Iraq war. It suits me. It doesn't suit the French though, it's against their national intrests. I don't call a man a coward because he is unwilling to shoot himself in the foot just because I asked him to. I call him smart. The French had a load of contracts in Iraq, "Oil for Food" is peanuts. A scandal invented by Bush to spread a little muck around the U.N. after Anan called the invasion illegal. Standard Bush M.O. he does it all the time. Iraq owed France a lot of money, money which they will now never see. >> Its a well established fact that the French were violating the sanctions the UN put in place, as was Kofi Annan's son and others. To say that it was 'invented' is a bunch of crap. The UN's word and declarations and edicts mean very little thanks to their impotence. They were laregly responsible for the misery that existed in Iraq, and weren't interested in upsetting that apple cart. I always see the signs 'No war for oil, but for the French, it truly was 'No war... for oil.'
<<Do you really believe that oil contracts was not the reason America and Britain went to war? Not even a factor? No wonder you hate the French then.>> Oil was definitely a factor in the Iraq invasion. As were WMD's, and to put pressure on Iran. Add to that the growing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were many reasons. <<You hate the French not because of their reasons for not going to war but because they made you look at your own reasons and you don't like what you see.>> No, its for the exact reasons I said. <<When you come to England, remember to tell strangers you are Canadian and not to talk politics in public places.>> I get along just fine with Brits. I can handle it when people disagree with me. Are you saying the Brits can't? Because that is not my experience.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Zyke Yay, WWII time.
The Germans didn't "whup" the British, Russians, or Americans in WWII. In fact they're MAJOR DEFEAT iN Stalingraad to the Russians is a big part of their loss of the war. They hardly were "whupping" England, it was more of a stalemate. I don't know about you, but last I heard no German soldier ever put a foot on England (unless you count him falling to his death our of a fighter or bomber that was shot down). Similarly, the joint English and American forces "whupped" Rommels ass out of North Africa, which led to the invasion of France, in case you forgot.
Let's see, oh yes, Omaha Beach. I think you generally just mean D-Day, which was multiple beaches. Omaha was just one of them. Let's take a moment and actually consider the facts. Have you EVER heard of an army attacking a Heavily Fortified Position and an Entrenched Enemy without taking high casualties? I will guarantee you had the Germans attacked Omaha Beach and it was under the control of the Allies, they would have taken just as similar casualties.
And Jewish slave labor? Please...let's see evidence where America benefited from that. America stood out of the war as long as it did because of the population. If you knew history you would also know that Roosevelt had Congress pass several bills allowing America to send massive amounts of armaments and supplies to England, which post-WWI was illegal because of the countries desire to be neutral. The fact that he was able to do even that was quite a feat as the country was still deeply entrenched in its isolationist ideals.
I'm not trying to insult France, but they were quickly defeated by the Blitzkrieg tactics. Not because they weren't filling to fight, but they were so unprepared for a "modern" war they were crushed. They were still digging trenches in a time when modern (1930's modern) warfare made them obsolete. That's why they were defeated so quickly and easily by the Germans. To their credit though, the French Resistance were a real pain in the neck for the occupiers.
Oh, and just for the record, I guarantee had France been attacked (modern terrorists now) there would have been quite a few American soldiers deployed. I'm not sure what this argument is about, I just thought I'd post some information. This isn't meant as a flame post.
That's about it :P Enjoy.
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were well and truely Whupped.
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
Stalingrad is nowhere near the border with Germany, the Russians were totally whupped by the same army before they managed to turn it around. Half of Russia fell.
Jewish slave labour was used in Fords German factories. It's well documented.
France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Well, I suppose the problem here is our definition of "whupped." If we use your definition, then the Germans weren't just whupped, they were mega-whupped by the allies as well. Yes, the British lost in France. The Russians also lost a lot of ground before pushing them back. But let's look at the keyword: Pushing them back.
While according to you they were all whupped, the Germans were also whupped during:
A- The Battle of Britain
B- Battle of the Bulge (though barely I suppose...yay 101st Airborne!)
C- North Africa Campaign
D- Staalingraad (sp)
E- Taking of Berlin
F- General Loss of Territory around the world
I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea.
The problem here is that you seem to think every defeat or series of defeats = whupping. I consider a whupping losing the war. Individual battles will help determine the end, but do not equal it. So, while the Russians and English took a whupping, they also gave it back, many times again, once the war turned around after the defeat of Rommel and the invasion of France.
And yes...half of Russia fell. But ALL of Germany fell. Every last inch, and even today they aren't allowed to have a large military (I think...though to be honest I'm not 100% sure).
As for attacking a fortified enemy...sure, there may be examples where it didn't happen, but the majority of the time it will. The German army was well trained, experienced, and equipped. The fact that the allies established a foothold at all in Normandy is a pretty big feat of itself. The only way for the allies to NOT have taken heavy casualties would have been to carpet bomb and shell the beaches for extremely long amounts of time. The airborne divisions were behind the lines, but nowhere near enough in number to take the beaches from behind.
Yes you could say "so why didn't they shell the beaches until nothing was left but sand and glass?" But, of course, is the fact that the D-Day invasion followed a feignt which led a nice proportion of the defenders away from Omaha Beach, allowing the invasion to be "less" bloody and easier on the Allies. Taking a while to siege the beach would-
1- Give time for the German Navy to respond
2- Give time for the German Airforce to respond, and
3- Give time for the Germans to send reinforcements to the beach, such as infantry and especially armor.
As for American troops in European cities, that's not what I meant. I misunderstood. I had meant that if France was attacked by terrorists from another country, thousands were killed, and they decided to invade, the US would probably send some people in too. I'm not saying a lot, but some. We get involved in everything :P I don't see how we couldn't tbh.
Israel should have started this ground offensive in the beginning. Those air raids were disgusting. I still can't believe they can try to justify their bombing of neighborhoods.
When your enemy hides in civilian houses and fires rockets from windows, it most certainly does justify bombing neighborhoods. If anything, I think Israel was way too nice. They shouldn't have warned people like they did. All they did was give their enemy a chance to flee with the civilians.
Comments
Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
So you think Hisbollah is the national army of Lebanon? Or that they wear uniforms?
It's a militia. Made up of civilians with guns. No one pays them. They don't get a pension. The elected government of neither Lebanon, Syria nor Iran ordered them to kidnap Israeli's.
Like the farmers who fought against the Red coats in the Independance War or Sadr's men in Baghdad.
Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
Lets see France has a track record of fighting? Lets talk WWII! The germans took France within only a couple of weeks! Better yet lets talk vietnam! The french asked for help in Vietnam then stuck the US with the whole problem! Lets talk the UN resolution Food for Oil Trade Agreement! French opposed the US going into Irtaq because why??? They had side deals outside this UN trade Agreement for oil! FRANCE IS A FULL OF SHIAT COUNTRY WITH FULL OF SHIAT PEOPLE! Simply PUT! Go talk how great France is to someone who believes it! France is nothing more than a WHITE FLAG Islamic appeasement country! And yes the UN is still worthless!
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).
The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.
I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.
Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.
Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).
The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.
I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.
Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.
Yay, WWII time.
The Germans didn't "whup" the British, Russians, or Americans in WWII. In fact they're MAJOR DEFEAT iN Stalingraad to the Russians is a big part of their loss of the war. They hardly were "whupping" England, it was more of a stalemate. I don't know about you, but last I heard no German soldier ever put a foot on England (unless you count him falling to his death our of a fighter or bomber that was shot down). Similarly, the joint English and American forces "whupped" Rommels ass out of North Africa, which led to the invasion of France, in case you forgot.
Let's see, oh yes, Omaha Beach. I think you generally just mean D-Day, which was multiple beaches. Omaha was just one of them. Let's take a moment and actually consider the facts. Have you EVER heard of an army attacking a Heavily Fortified Position and an Entrenched Enemy without taking high casualties? I will guarantee you had the Germans attacked Omaha Beach and it was under the control of the Allies, they would have taken just as similar casualties.
And Jewish slave labor? Please...let's see evidence where America benefited from that. America stood out of the war as long as it did because of the population. If you knew history you would also know that Roosevelt had Congress pass several bills allowing America to send massive amounts of armaments and supplies to England, which post-WWI was illegal because of the countries desire to be neutral. The fact that he was able to do even that was quite a feat as the country was still deeply entrenched in its isolationist ideals.
I'm not trying to insult France, but they were quickly defeated by the Blitzkrieg tactics. Not because they weren't filling to fight, but they were so unprepared for a "modern" war they were crushed. They were still digging trenches in a time when modern (1930's modern) warfare made them obsolete. That's why they were defeated so quickly and easily by the Germans. To their credit though, the French Resistance were a real pain in the neck for the occupiers.
As for Vietnam, what happened was Vietnam was a colony of France. The northern Vietnamese and Southern Vietnamese citizens were fighting, however, because of political reasons (if I remember correctly). This is what led to the split of the country into North and South. As we know the North eventually decided "hey, let's invade the south" and France went to war. However, they asked America for help, who sent over military advisers.
Now, here's the nice part. The French leave, and leave America there by itself, after asking for help. More advisers are sent to South Vietnam to fight the communist North (remember this is during the Cold War), and eventually troops are sent over. China also sends troops and supplies to the North, as they also did with Korea, and so you have the war we all think of today.
Oh, and just for the record, I guarantee had France been attacked (modern terrorists now) there would have been quite a few American soldiers deployed. I'm not sure what this argument is about, I just thought I'd post some information. This isn't meant as a flame post.
That's about it :P Enjoy.
Actually France has a track record of standing and fighting, you're only sore because it's your country they are standing up to.
No, I have a problem with the reasons they made the decisions they have made.
I feel the same, the "human shields" thing however is nothing but propaganda.
Sure. So they're not launching rockets and missilies from civilian areas?
That's right, they are not. If you watch the newsreels you will clearly see that they are launching rockets from olive groves and the like outside of civilian areas.
Hamas on the other hand probably are launching from civilian areas. I don't think the west bank has any non-"civilian areas", I think it is too built up.
However, Hisbollah and Hamas are comprised of the local civilians, so when they go home at night they go home to civilian areas. Which the Israelis target and bomb. A Hisbollah leader for example may organise his forces from his own home using his own telephone. Which makes his home a target. He is not using his family as shields, he is fighting to defend them and his home. He is attempting to shield them. He may buy the food for his troops from the local bakery, which makes the local bakery a target while he is there. And so on.
I'm sure Hezbollah is allowing filming of all the sites they launch rockets from too, right?
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.
Good I hope you enjoy the French that country is filled with rude people not to mention the smell...........
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
<<Yes lets talk WW2, France showed up, America was too scared.The Germans invaded Poland, and Britain and France declared war. (While the U.S. was earning too much money from all the Jewish slave labour in it's Ford factories).>>
I would say that the US was where Europe is right now in the war on terror. Kidding ourselves that it was far away and it 'wasn't our war'. Eventually the States woke up.
<<The Germans whupped the British the French and the Russians, in fact they whupped everyone, you might want to remember just how many thousands of Americans a few hundred of them killed at Omaha Beach before you run your smart mouth.>>
Of the Brits, French and Russians, only one of them fell to the Germans. We know which one.
<<I don't know about Vietnam, but the root of your problem is they didn't want to invade Iraq, just like most countries and you didn't want to hear it. You wanted to kill Iraqi's.>>
Come on, Baff. To say we 'wanted to kill Iraqi's' is just ludicrous. I know you disagree with the war in Iraq, but to say it was done just because we wanted to kill Iraqi's is over the top, and I'm sure you realize that. France opposed the war in Iraq primarily because they had too much money tied up in oil deals in violation of the UN sanctions. But then, so did the UN.
<<Personally I think it's pretty poor to talk about France this way, When al Quaida attacked you, the French volunteered to fight for you. They had no self intrest in deploying to Afghanistan. No money to be made, just costs and dead soldiers. For one reason and one reason only, your safety.
In your darkest hour, in your moment of need, when you needed a friend, the French deployed. They were under no obligation, you didn't ask them, they volunteered to fight and die for you. You are a pretty ungrateful bunch. You don't deserve allies.
I used to holiday in America 3 months of every year. Now I holiday in France.>>
Once again, it was the reasons France did what they did that I have a problem with. I can't disagree that we can be ungrateful, but we certainly don't have a lock on that, by any means.
As far as your vacations go, you have every right to decide not to visit the States, and go to France. I, personally, have no desire to ever go to France. I will someday soon visit the UK, though. I like the Brits, even if I disagree with them on some things. I hope you enjoy your vacation.
We've had terrorism in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. The French have plenty of terrorism of their own to deal with. Daily. Terrorism has never been "far away" from Europe, it's always been right here. Unignorably so.
The French and most other Europeans are also in Afghanistan fighting your "War on Terror". It's the "Invasion of Iraq" they didn't attend. It really blows that you are also willing to forget this. They give their lives for your nation and you insult them. I cannot empahacise this enough.
I totally approve of the Iraq war. It suits me.
It doesn't suit the French though, it's against their national intrests. I don't call a man a coward because he is unwilling to shoot himself in the foot just because I asked him to. I call him smart.
The French had a load of contracts in Iraq, "Oil for Food" is peanuts. A scandal invented by Bush to spread a little muck around the U.N. after Anan called the invasion illegal. Standard Bush M.O. he does it all the time. Iraq owed France a lot of money, money which they will now never see.
The Americans wanted those trade contracts too. The French knew if they went to war with the U.S. they would still lose the contracts, so why bother? If someone is going to steal something from you, even if you can't stop them, you don't help them. They are also long time allies of Saddams regime, and unlike us, they have a history of not turning on their allies. You can trust the French. They have loyalty.
Do you really believe that oil contracts was not the reason America and Britain went to war? Not even a factor? No wonder you hate the French then.
You hate the French not because of their reasons for not going to war but because they made you look at your own reasons and you don't like what you see.
When you come to England, remember to tell strangers you are Canadian and not to talk politics in public places.
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were well and truely Whupped.
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
Stalingrad is nowhere near the border with Germany, the Russians were totally whupped by the same army before they managed to turn it around. Half of Russia fell.
Jewish slave labour was used in Fords German factories. It's well documented.
France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Yeah I really admire the French for not wanting to topple a mass murderer so they could continue to get paid.
Saddam owed the French tons of money plain and simple. Do you think we really care about hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts when we have spent hundreds of billions on the war?
I think one of those hidden reasons you may be looking for is the fact Iraq stopped accepting Dollars for oil and switched to Euros instead. That kinda stuff really places the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency in serious danger. I don't blame them though for wanting to switch the dollar is really tanking since Clinton let China get their hooks into us with the Most Favored Nation Trading status and Bush hasn't had the balls to pull the hooks out because in the short term it would hurt a bit mostly the lower and middle class Americans that shop at Wal-Mart.
Oh and FYI Iran just recently switched from accepting dollars for oil to Euros are we starting to see a pattern yet?
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
A little thing called water and beaches make naval invasions an entirley different animal from attacking regular fortified positions. Comparing those two situations is like comparing apples and oranges.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Cheers.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Its their own fault for having such a loose emigration policy. Your right about American troops and European cities not getting along though I can't think of any regulars trained for battle that enjoy playing soldier in an urban environment, and with those narrow street of yours our M1A2s would tear the place apart.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
The British were fighting next to the French in France during the blitzkreig. We were well and truely Whupped.
As it happens I have heard of armies attacking heavily fortified positions with low casualties. Many many times, not least on the beaches of Utah, Sword, Arrow and Juno. Didn't you just try and explain to me that "entrenched positions" was a redundant tactic in modern war?
Stalingrad is nowhere near the border with Germany, the Russians were totally whupped by the same army before they managed to turn it around. Half of Russia fell.
Jewish slave labour was used in Fords German factories. It's well documented.
France has been under persistent terrorist attack by muslim extremists for the last 50 years. They have soldiers stationed at every rail terminal in the country, have done all my life. America has never turned up to help. Don't kid yourself. In all fairness, I don't think deploying American troops in European cities would go down very well.
"Deploying troops" doesn't stop terrorism. Terrorists are stopped by police and spies.
Well, I suppose the problem here is our definition of "whupped." If we use your definition, then the Germans weren't just whupped, they were mega-whupped by the allies as well. Yes, the British lost in France. The Russians also lost a lot of ground before pushing them back. But let's look at the keyword: Pushing them back.
While according to you they were all whupped, the Germans were also whupped during:
A- The Battle of Britain
B- Battle of the Bulge (though barely I suppose...yay 101st Airborne!)
C- North Africa Campaign
D- Staalingraad (sp)
E- Taking of Berlin
F- General Loss of Territory around the world
I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea.
The problem here is that you seem to think every defeat or series of defeats = whupping. I consider a whupping losing the war. Individual battles will help determine the end, but do not equal it. So, while the Russians and English took a whupping, they also gave it back, many times again, once the war turned around after the defeat of Rommel and the invasion of France.
And yes...half of Russia fell. But ALL of Germany fell. Every last inch, and even today they aren't allowed to have a large military (I think...though to be honest I'm not 100% sure).
As for attacking a fortified enemy...sure, there may be examples where it didn't happen, but the majority of the time it will. The German army was well trained, experienced, and equipped. The fact that the allies established a foothold at all in Normandy is a pretty big feat of itself. The only way for the allies to NOT have taken heavy casualties would have been to carpet bomb and shell the beaches for extremely long amounts of time. The airborne divisions were behind the lines, but nowhere near enough in number to take the beaches from behind.
Yes you could say "so why didn't they shell the beaches until nothing was left but sand and glass?" But, of course, is the fact that the D-Day invasion followed a feignt which led a nice proportion of the defenders away from Omaha Beach, allowing the invasion to be "less" bloody and easier on the Allies. Taking a while to siege the beach would-
1- Give time for the German Navy to respond
2- Give time for the German Airforce to respond, and
3- Give time for the Germans to send reinforcements to the beach, such as infantry and especially armor.
As for American troops in European cities, that's not what I meant. I misunderstood. I had meant that if France was attacked by terrorists from another country, thousands were killed, and they decided to invade, the US would probably send some people in too. I'm not saying a lot, but some. We get involved in everything :P I don't see how we couldn't tbh.