Originally posted by Zorvan Originally posted by outfctrlDidnt see where Korea is playing footsies with al Qaeda like Sadaam did.
I have to agree. Kim is just a whiny, closet fag with a bad Elvis impersonator wig. He screams, kicks, and yells. That's it. Although I do think that once we can get out of Iraq, North Korea should have our attention. Also, Kim always threatening to launch N. Korean warheads gives us something Saddam didn't. The right for a full nuclear reprisal.
Geez...seriously Zorvan, this is adult conversation dealing with adult subjects, you need to go back to your "wow, look at me, I got banned from DnL lol lol lol" threads and leave the real talk to the grown-ups.
Originally posted by baff I'm not adverse to invading Iraq. But you should understand, that Iraq possed no threat to us or the region. There was no connection to Al Quaeda. We did not think he had WMD of any significance or the ability to get any. We knew he had nothing to "launch".
Why we went to war with Iraq now is to prevent a future disaster. Ever hear "Nip it in the bud"? Thats what we did. 10, 15, 20 years from now, if that lunatic stayed in office, there could be some serious shit going on.
Not anymore! He is history. We did the right thing.
Nonsense, look back 20 years and you will see he was very useful to have in power. Outside of his atttack on Kuwait he has been very useful to us in stabilising the region. Now he is gone the place is highly unstable again.
Saddam wasn't a lunatic. He just stopped playing ball. He didn't have the military capability to defend himself let alone start a regional disaster. We had him contained.
What we did right was take Iraq when it was weak and maintain or own military domination of the region.
Originally posted by baff I'm not adverse to invading Iraq. But you should understand, that Iraq possed no threat to us or the region. There was no connection to Al Quaeda. We did not think he had WMD of any significance or the ability to get any. We knew he had nothing to "launch".
Why we went to war with Iraq now is to prevent a future disaster. Ever hear "Nip it in the bud"?Thats what we did. 10, 15, 20 years from now, if that lunatic stayed in office, there could be some serious shit going on. Not anymore! He is history. We did the right thing.
For real...perhaps if 41 had've nuked Saddam's ass when he had the chance, you'd now only have Kim to deal with. And i'm afraid Kim is a bigger problem than Saddam ever was. Yes, that's right. Kim is a *much* bigger problem.
Declaring that ceasefire on the outskirts of Baghdad in 1991 was a bad move. The US actually had the support of most of the world then, rather than just the half of it has now.
Originally posted by baff Nonsense, look back 20 years and you will see he was very useful to have in power. Outside of his atttack on Kuwait he has been very useful to us in stabilising the region. Now he is gone the place is highly unstable again. Bingo Saddam wasn't a lunatic. He just stopped playing ball. He didn't have the military capability to defend himself let alone start a regional disaster. We had him contained. What we did right was take Iraq when it was weak and maintain or own military domination of the region.
See my reply to outofctl - Saddam should've been deposed in 1991.
Negative. In 1991 the U.S. had exactly the same lack of support for invasion of Iraq as it did in 2003.
That's why Bush Snr didn't do it. He was a coalition builder.
Jnr didn't care.
Any attempts to "deal with" Mr Kim are directly against my intrests and I should personally take financial sanctions against the U.S. and pettition my government to do the same.
Originally posted by daeandor Why does everyone in France hate Americans?
Because they do not like our leader. And our leader represents us. So there for they have every right to hate us.
But that is not the point. Why do americans hate the French?
Cause everyone hate attention-whores?
Canadian-guessing system at work!
But heck, Chiraq is the most boring politician I ever heard. If anyone think Bush is boring, gah, don't learn french, I mean, Chiraq is actually able to talk on for hours without ever actually saying anything.
Bush is quite simple: We don't like Hussein and we want to kick his arse, let's pretend he has WMD. Everyone got it except maybe the CIA. Chiraq? Anyone can told me ANYTHING this guy ever said? I can't. Most peoples can't. Because when he speaks, he says nada. Chiraq is merely a PR guy. Bush might only be a PR guy, but at least, he feels like some cowboy and we get lot of funny stuff to tease him about. What can we tease Chiraq about? What did her mom say about him? Did he caugh on a Bretzel? Something...gah. (the PPG look)
And quite frankly, the relation between the US-France is similar to a wife and his husband, that live in different bedrooms. They may or not agree, but heck, it is always colorful. "Maudit fran
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by baff Negative in 1991 the U.S. had exactly the same lack of support for invasiuon of Iraqas it did in 2003. That's why Bush Snr didn't do it. He was a coalition builder.
The invasion of Iraq had already happened. They were in Iraq when 41 called a halt. And 41 had a lot more support then. For starters, he had Russia and France's support. He had France's military commitment. He had Canada's military commitment, Turkey's, Oman's, UAE's, Saudi Arabia's...
Look up the Battle of Medina Ridge, see who was involved in it. The French were there. Turkey made serious inroads into Iraqi Kurdistan, admittedly for their own reasons.
The sheer simple fact remains. it would've bene easier to have dealt with Saddam then than it had been in 2003. For no other reason, than Saddam was perceived as a much bigger boogerboo, especially by his neighbours.
I personally feel, as do many others, that 41 blew a chance back then.
Originally posted by baff Negative there was no French, Canadian, Saudi or Turkish commitment to invade Iraq. They all refused.
The same people who said no in 2003, all said no in 1991 too.
Canadian Navy engaged in battles and was there, as well as CF-18 airplanes and our underequip infantry was ready on the move but I think they where rightfully left in Qatar by the US official who didn't want to lose lives pointlessly, not good for PR and data showing.
But yes, we have like 3 boats and 5 planes there in 1991! And Canada would have been okay to press the attack further inside Iraq I *THINK*, the political situation wasn't the same. It was retaliation against Kuweit invasion after all. Some peoples make jokes about our boats, but they have incredible firepower even if they lack at much everything else. They prolly could take on nearly anything, they would also prolly be sunk as they sunk whatever stand in front of them.
Canada's main role with Kuweit was prolly at extinguishing the oil camps however. This help was significant and concrete, since I think the US would have manage with 3 boats and 5 planes less without much difference, yet without the fire extinguishers Canada's supply...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Ulujain Look up the Battle of Medina Ridge, see who was involved in it. The French were there. Turkey made serious inroads into Iraqi Kurdistan, admittedly for their own reasons. The sheer simple fact remains. it would've bene easier to have dealt with Saddam then than it had been in 2003. For no other reason, than Saddam was perceived as a much bigger boogerboo, especially by his neighbours. I personally feel, as do many others, that 41 blew a chance back then.
The alliance's goal was to liberate Kuwait not invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Bush proposed the invasion of Iraq and the coalition fell apart.
Great deal on French Military rifles, never fired, and only dropped once...
One reason is France was a prime reason for the creation of the UN yet while they vote on UN military force to be used they never comit troops. After they then downtalk nations ( US mainly who supplies 60% UN troop muscle ) on their military nature. Keep in mind though this is comming from a Nation who hasn't won any conflict in it's history, so maybe that's why they no longer comit to fighting.
SWTOR. Face it, in the Scooby Doo Mystery Solving Van of coolness, this game is Velma. In this current MMO climate it has about as much chance for survival as a group of inquisitive teenagers in a 1980s slasher flick. -Tardcore May, 2011
Comming late i know, but.. Great deal on French Military rifles, never fired, and only dropped once... One reason is France was a prime reason for the creation of the UN yet while they vote on UN military force to be used they never comit troops. After they then downtalk nations ( US mainly who supplies 60% UN troop muscle ) on their military nature. Keep in mind though this is comming from a Nation who hasn't won any conflict in it's history, so maybe that's why they no longer comit to fighting.
France has two major troop deployments in the Middle East currenlty.
They deploy to Africa frequently (Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, Algeria) and also have a permanent major deployment to the Carribean, (Haiti, Guyana). France is also a significant contributor to the EU force deployed in the Balklans.
They have a total of 36,000 troops on foreign deployment at this time.
They have won more conflicts in their history than America.
Comming late i know, but.. Great deal on French Military rifles, never fired, and only dropped once... One reason is France was a prime reason for the creation of the UN yet while they vote on UN military force to be used they never comit troops. After they then downtalk nations ( US mainly who supplies 60% UN troop muscle ) on their military nature. Keep in mind though this is comming from a Nation who hasn't won any conflict in it's history, so maybe that's why they no longer comit to fighting.
France has two major troop deployments in the Middle East currenlty.
They deploy to Africa frequently (Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, Algeria) and also have a permanent major deployment to the Carribean, (Haiti, Guyana). France is also a significant contributor to the EU force deployed in the Balklans.
They have a total of 36,000 troops on foreign deployment at this time.
They have won more conflicts in their history than America.
And lost more conflicts too.
Troops deployed and contributions are not exactly a great measure. The number of countries that have contributed more troops to UN missions than France is too long to list. But they guy who said that the US is the UN's muscle is completely wrong too. The US contributes very little military manpower, nearly 50 troops on average per month, to the UN. UN forces in recent years have been comprised of all nationalities, France being a minor contributor in terms of manpower at about 600 max until the recent deployment in Lebenon. Pakistan, Bangledesh, and India have been the highest troop (2000+) contributors for nearly 15 years.
What may be unknown to many is that there is a reason the US contributes so little in military manpower. The biggest being money. The US is required to foot the bill for any troops they deploy under the UN name, while most other countries are allowed to charge the UN along with receiving a monthly stipend for their troops.
Quasi war 1798? WW1? WW2? Indochina 1953? The Napoleonic wars even though he was a corsican, they still lost. What we colonists call the French Indian war 1757, didn't they loose and got Canada in recompinsation? ( no offence to Canada ) America's governing body won it's revolution, did the French?
America has only lost the Vietnam war, unless your talking about individual battles, conflicts...
France has military commitments, and yes many of her troops are top notch. No other nation can compare to the Legion and it's exploits. Her military designers are also highly compitent. Not many know the French R35 tank was actually superior to the German Panzer. The Mirage fighter, and Exocet missles used by the Argentinians in the Falklands campaign, put up a stiff fight.
France was a lead nation in forming the UN after Germany rolled through it a second time. And continually asked for aid, equipment, and troops to help in it's conflict in retaking it's former colony Veitnam. The US however just withdrawing troops from Korea was hesitant in commiting again. When France lost the fight in 1953 right as US material was begining to trickle in maybe that is where it began?
Still of all the nations in the UN France seems to be the most vocal about overzealous military might. Perhaps after Germany rolls through a 3rd time?
SWTOR. Face it, in the Scooby Doo Mystery Solving Van of coolness, this game is Velma. In this current MMO climate it has about as much chance for survival as a group of inquisitive teenagers in a 1980s slasher flick. -Tardcore May, 2011
The patriot and the "Nazi" both love their home country. difference? The nazi hates other countries.
Guys, we all are gamers. In these times of internet such one-eyed posts like this title is ...cheese. It is the internet! Learn! Learn what? Netiquette? Respect? X-mas time beyond shopping terror?
I don't hate any race/nationality as a whole because of a few isolated incidents or because the leader is of questionable character, however, I have been mistreated as an American repeatedly in certain "French" areas of Canada, and it left a "bad taste" in my mouth. I can honestly say that I wouldn't travel to those areas ever again...
When will people ever be able to see another human being as a PERSON and not as a race, nationality or religion...
Comments
Geez...seriously Zorvan, this is adult conversation dealing with adult subjects, you need to go back to your "wow, look at me, I got banned from DnL lol lol lol" threads and leave the real talk to the grown-ups.
Why we went to war with Iraq now is to prevent a future disaster. Ever hear "Nip it in the bud"?
Thats what we did. 10, 15, 20 years from now, if that lunatic stayed in office, there could be some serious shit going on.
Not anymore! He is history. We did the right thing.
Nonsense, look back 20 years and you will see he was very useful to have in power. Outside of his atttack on Kuwait he has been very useful to us in stabilising the region. Now he is gone the place is highly unstable again.
Saddam wasn't a lunatic. He just stopped playing ball. He didn't have the military capability to defend himself let alone start a regional disaster. We had him contained.
What we did right was take Iraq when it was weak and maintain or own military domination of the region.
For real...perhaps if 41 had've nuked Saddam's ass when he had the chance, you'd now only have Kim to deal with. And i'm afraid Kim is a bigger problem than Saddam ever was. Yes, that's right. Kim is a *much* bigger problem.
Declaring that ceasefire on the outskirts of Baghdad in 1991 was a bad move. The US actually had the support of most of the world then, rather than just the half of it has now.
See my reply to outofctl - Saddam should've been deposed in 1991.
Negative. In 1991 the U.S. had exactly the same lack of support for invasion of Iraq as it did in 2003.
That's why Bush Snr didn't do it. He was a coalition builder.
Jnr didn't care.
Any attempts to "deal with" Mr Kim are directly against my intrests and I should personally take financial sanctions against the U.S. and pettition my government to do the same.
But that is not the point. Why do americans hate the French?
Cause everyone hate attention-whores?
Canadian-guessing system at work!
But heck, Chiraq is the most boring politician I ever heard. If anyone think Bush is boring, gah, don't learn french, I mean, Chiraq is actually able to talk on for hours without ever actually saying anything.
Bush is quite simple: We don't like Hussein and we want to kick his arse, let's pretend he has WMD. Everyone got it except maybe the CIA. Chiraq? Anyone can told me ANYTHING this guy ever said? I can't. Most peoples can't. Because when he speaks, he says nada. Chiraq is merely a PR guy. Bush might only be a PR guy, but at least, he feels like some cowboy and we get lot of funny stuff to tease him about. What can we tease Chiraq about? What did her mom say about him? Did he caugh on a Bretzel? Something...gah.
(the PPG look)
And quite frankly, the relation between the US-France is similar to a wife and his husband, that live in different bedrooms. They may or not agree, but heck, it is always colorful.
"Maudit fran
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The invasion of Iraq had already happened. They were in Iraq when 41 called a halt. And 41 had a lot more support then. For starters, he had Russia and France's support. He had France's military commitment. He had Canada's military commitment, Turkey's, Oman's, UAE's, Saudi Arabia's...
Negative. There was no French, Canadian, Saudi or Turkish commitment to invade Iraq.
They all refused.
The same people who said no in 2003, all said no in 1991 too.
Their commitment was to liberating Kuwait only. It was against their national intrests to overthrow Saddam in 1991 just as much as it was in 2003.
Look up the Battle of Medina Ridge, see who was involved in it. The French were there. Turkey made serious inroads into Iraqi Kurdistan, admittedly for their own reasons.
The sheer simple fact remains. it would've bene easier to have dealt with Saddam then than it had been in 2003. For no other reason, than Saddam was perceived as a much bigger boogerboo, especially by his neighbours.
I personally feel, as do many others, that 41 blew a chance back then.
Canadian Navy engaged in battles and was there, as well as CF-18 airplanes and our underequip infantry was ready on the move but I think they where rightfully left in Qatar by the US official who didn't want to lose lives pointlessly, not good for PR and data showing.
But yes, we have like 3 boats and 5 planes there in 1991!
And Canada would have been okay to press the attack further inside Iraq I *THINK*, the political situation wasn't the same. It was retaliation against Kuweit invasion after all. Some peoples make jokes about our boats, but they have incredible firepower even if they lack at much everything else. They prolly could take on nearly anything, they would also prolly be sunk as they sunk whatever stand in front of them.
Canada's main role with Kuweit was prolly at extinguishing the oil camps however. This help was significant and concrete, since I think the US would have manage with 3 boats and 5 planes less without much difference, yet without the fire extinguishers Canada's supply...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The alliance's goal was to liberate Kuwait not invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Bush proposed the invasion of Iraq and the coalition fell apart.
Comming late i know, but..
Great deal on French Military rifles, never fired, and only dropped once...
One reason is France was a prime reason for the creation of the UN yet while they vote on UN military force to be used they never comit troops. After they then downtalk nations ( US mainly who supplies 60% UN troop muscle ) on their military nature. Keep in mind though this is comming from a Nation who hasn't won any conflict in it's history, so maybe that's why they no longer comit to fighting.
SWTOR. Face it, in the Scooby Doo Mystery Solving Van of coolness, this game is Velma. In this current MMO climate it has about as much chance for survival as a group of inquisitive teenagers in a 1980s slasher flick. -Tardcore May, 2011
Please go look up "the 100 year war."
France has two major troop deployments in the Middle East currenlty.
They deploy to Africa frequently (Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, Algeria) and also have a permanent major deployment to the Carribean, (Haiti, Guyana). France is also a significant contributor to the EU force deployed in the Balklans.
They have a total of 36,000 troops on foreign deployment at this time.
They have won more conflicts in their history than America.
France has two major troop deployments in the Middle East currenlty.
They deploy to Africa frequently (Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, Algeria) and also have a permanent major deployment to the Carribean, (Haiti, Guyana). France is also a significant contributor to the EU force deployed in the Balklans.
They have a total of 36,000 troops on foreign deployment at this time.
They have won more conflicts in their history than America.
And lost more conflicts too.Troops deployed and contributions are not exactly a great measure. The number of countries that have contributed more troops to UN missions than France is too long to list. But they guy who said that the US is the UN's muscle is completely wrong too. The US contributes very little military manpower, nearly 50 troops on average per month, to the UN. UN forces in recent years have been comprised of all nationalities, France being a minor contributor in terms of manpower at about 600 max until the recent deployment in Lebenon. Pakistan, Bangledesh, and India have been the highest troop (2000+) contributors for nearly 15 years.
What may be unknown to many is that there is a reason the US contributes so little in military manpower. The biggest being money. The US is required to foot the bill for any troops they deploy under the UN name, while most other countries are allowed to charge the UN along with receiving a monthly stipend for their troops.
They Have?
Quasi war 1798? WW1? WW2? Indochina 1953? The Napoleonic wars even though he was a corsican, they still lost. What we colonists call the French Indian war 1757, didn't they loose and got Canada in recompinsation? ( no offence to Canada ) America's governing body won it's revolution, did the French?
America has only lost the Vietnam war, unless your talking about individual battles, conflicts...
France has military commitments, and yes many of her troops are top notch. No other nation can compare to the Legion and it's exploits. Her military designers are also highly compitent. Not many know the French R35 tank was actually superior to the German Panzer. The Mirage fighter, and Exocet missles used by the Argentinians in the Falklands campaign, put up a stiff fight.
France was a lead nation in forming the UN after Germany rolled through it a second time. And continually asked for aid, equipment, and troops to help in it's conflict in retaking it's former colony Veitnam. The US however just withdrawing troops from Korea was hesitant in commiting again. When France lost the fight in 1953 right as US material was begining to trickle in maybe that is where it began?
Still of all the nations in the UN France seems to be the most vocal about overzealous military might. Perhaps after Germany rolls through a 3rd time?
SWTOR. Face it, in the Scooby Doo Mystery Solving Van of coolness, this game is Velma. In this current MMO climate it has about as much chance for survival as a group of inquisitive teenagers in a 1980s slasher flick. -Tardcore May, 2011
France pays 6% of the U.N.'s bill, the U.S. 22%.
France has 60 million people, the U.S. 300 million.
Per capita the French pay more than you.
However per capita you deploy twice as many servicemen abroad as France does.
The patriot and the "Nazi" both love their home country.
difference?
The nazi hates other countries.
Guys, we all are gamers. In these times of internet such one-eyed posts like this title is ...cheese.
It is the internet! Learn!
Learn what?
Netiquette?
Respect?
X-mas time beyond shopping terror?
Learn to respect each other.
sorry my bad english.
I don't hate any race/nationality as a whole because of a few isolated incidents or because the leader is of questionable character, however, I have been mistreated as an American repeatedly in certain "French" areas of Canada, and it left a "bad taste" in my mouth. I can honestly say that I wouldn't travel to those areas ever again...
When will people ever be able to see another human being as a PERSON and not as a race, nationality or religion...
France bah! Brittany for the Bretons!