1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

What are the best friends of your country?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ernest, Feb 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    (ernest @ Feb. 25 2005,16:13) I think it is more easy to fight Vietnam than Germany.
    And yet we lost in Vietnam, but we beat Germany. (Lest anyone think I am denigrating the performance of the US Armed forces in Vietnam, I assure you that I am not. Â Let's just say that I have my differences with the Johnson and Nixon Adminstrations.)
    But with Russians, Serbs, UK, Polish, Greeks, French... It sounds as if US were not able to win a war alone? It could explain why they are so disappointed when other counties don't want to attack Iraq... Why do you need France (as they don't know to fight) and Germany (as it is your enemy) in Iraq?
     
  2. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    (drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,16:14) Russia was fighting against Germany a whole five months longer than the US was.
    This is a little disingenuous, as we did not have any troops in action in the ETO until the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, whereas the Russians had something like 300 divisions on the Eastern Front.
    This is true, but ernest said that the US entered the war 4 years after anyone else, which certainly isn't true. The Russians bore much of the burden of the ground warfare during WWII, but would have lost w/o US resupply and a second front.
     
  3. esquire.

    esquire. Senior member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Ernest,

    America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
     
  4. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    I think they certainly would have lost without US supply.  But would they have lost without a second front?  That's harder to say.  It's at least conceivable that they would have gotten to Berlin.  Maybe not in 1945, but eventually.
     
  5. topcatny

    topcatny Senior member

    Messages:
    1,054
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Location:
    NYC and Long Island, NY
    (topcatny @ Feb. 25 2005,21:16)
    They prefer bombing from boats 5000km away from their enemy like in Serbia.... Less spooky. Â Of course, a real war (face to face on the ground) would make more deads than 2 buildings crashed in NYC... And what to say about bombing Japan with a A bomb? Is it a fair way of making war?
    ernest, Â Ever hear the expression all is fair in love and war? Â To say bombing countries from cruise ships is unfair is ridiculous. Â Why is it not fair, because the country we are fighting does not have the same technology? Â You fight a war to win and you use the arsenal you have to accomplish that.
    I just think that an army which is used to fight against : - enemy from the third world  (VIETNAM, IRAq) - enemy which have 25 time less people (Serbia, Cuba) - enemy on which they use an A bomb (Japan) In all cases, enemies which are 7000 km from its own country. A current army composed of Blacks/mexicans teenagers who are  only considered as american during war (because whites don't need money and so don't join the army). An army who killed/injured more civilians than soldiers in his history (Indians, Japanese, Vietnam...) This type of army can not be considered as a reference in the art of war IMO. May be you consider that droping napalm bomb and A bombs from plans is something one could be proud?  I do not.
    Ernest, there are so many things wrong with what you claim that others have already beaten me in posting about. I did not say I was proud or unproud of using nuclear weapons. You said it was not fair and I challenged that assertion. Also, we weren't discussing the art of war, I don't remember SunTzu being brought up at all. To you is the only way to fight a fair war the same way wars were fought when France last had a respectable army? Troops lined up perfectly across from each other in an open field shooting at each other with rifles and charging with their bayonets. And lets not forget the advanced weponary back then. The cannon.
     
  6. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    (drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,22:03) Oh, come off the high horse. That's as hypocritical as it gets. The US obviously didn't target the civilians that were killed, and this coming from a country that deported ITS OWN CITIZENS to death camps. Obviously collateral damage was lower by French forces because for the last 200 years (outside of Algeria and the Suez affair) all of their wars were fought on their own territory) and it wouldn't do to kill their own citizens (unless they were Jewish)
    Didn't US killed their own Indians? May be you consider they were not true US citizens? What do you think about US people (jew and none jews) who were aware of what germans were doing and waited 3 years to enter in war just because Japan attacked them? When you drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who do you expect you kill but civilians?
    While it's certainly true that the US military knew of the existence of the concentration camps before the end of the war, its likely they didn't know of their existence until 1942-43 at the earliest. Auschwitz wasn't even functional until 1942, and although Dachau was built in 1933, it wasn't used for executions until late 1940. Hiroshima was a civilian city, but it was also the headquarters of the Japanese Imperial Navy, so it was certainly a military target. Nagasaki was also the largest naval base on Kyushu.
     
  7. nightowl6261a

    nightowl6261a Senior member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ernest, it was not our war, we had no reasoning to join in, we did help with aid in military needs etc, but your question goes deeoer,...the French knew what was being done , yet did nothing, why is that, why does America have to come to the resue of the world always, if it had not been for the US joining the war, the rest of the world would be speaking German with the exception maybe, just maybe of the Americas (North and South), and maybe the UK....France would definitely be eating German roast and potatos....guaranteed, hell what help did you all give but a nice place to sleep in a barn when we came to Normandy.

    We did not kill the Indians until during expansion the Indian tribes attacked the cavalry ands innocent civilians...then we had no choice but to retaliate.

    WAR kills civilians ernest, all over the world, do you think that Russia, Germany, UK, Italy did not kill any civilians during their bombing, do you remember the Blitz, it killed many English, the only European country who really did not kill anyone except their own was France.
     
  8. topcatny

    topcatny Senior member

    Messages:
    1,054
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Location:
    NYC and Long Island, NY
    We don't so much need them, but would prefer if they stay out of the way and stop abetting the enemy.
     
  9. nightowl6261a

    nightowl6261a Senior member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Anyone want to play a game, of CHESS?


    Remeber that statement from a movie, maybe that is what the French think war is.
     
  10. topcatny

    topcatny Senior member

    Messages:
    1,054
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Location:
    NYC and Long Island, NY
    Wargames.
     
  11. nightowl6261a

    nightowl6261a Senior member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta
  12. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
     
  13. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    (drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,16:23) The Russians bore much of the burden of the ground warfare during WWII, but would have lost w/o US resupply and a second front.
    I think they certainly would have lost without US supply. But would they have lost without a second front? That's harder to say. It's at least conceivable that they would have gotten to Berlin. Maybe not in 1945, but eventually.
    If the US wasn't involved in the war at all, the British were bottled up, and the Germans didn't keep several million troops in France preparing for an invasion, I think they could have won in the eastern front, especially if they had those troops available for the initial invasion, not to mention the Afrika Korps. Imagine Operation Barbarossa being led by Erwin Rommel with two million more troops and five thousand more tanks?
     
  14. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    Yeah, ok, you're probably right.
     
  15. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    (esquire. @ Feb. 25 2005,22:25) Ernest, America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
    Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
    12500 Americans lost their lives on Okinawa and 110,000 Japanese. The US estimated that 1 million US soldiers would have been killed in an invasion of Japan, and 5-10 million Japanese. We could have fought that war and won (we had in excess of 3 million troops ready to invade, and with unrestricted air superiority, would have been able to pound them into submission with unrelenting urban warfare). In the case of an invasion, the civilian body count would have likely been in the 3-5 million range. Was it better to kill 250k civilians and avoid that type of chaos and destruction? Most people agree that it was.
     
  16. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    One more time, US were only a small help compare to what did Russians and other Europeans.

    Just because US is far from Germany. If Canada was Germany, you wouldn't exist anymore.

    US have just the luck to have weak contries around it. That's the only reason why you can say that you wouldn't speak german...
     
  17. nightowl6261a

    nightowl6261a Senior member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ernest, look this picture closely, and remeber without the US, this would be life today in France. Normandy, 9,387 American military Dead, most of whom gave their lives during the landing. [​IMG]
     
  18. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    (ernest @ Feb. 25 2005,13:35)
    Ernest, America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
    Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
    12500 Americans lost their lives on Okinawa and 110,000 Japanese. Â The US estimated that 1 million US soldiers would have been killed in an invasion of Japan, and 5-10 million Japanese. Â We could have fought that war and won (we had in excess of 3 million troops ready to invade, and with unrestricted air superiority, would have been able to pound them into submission with unrelenting urban warfare). Â In the case of an invasion, the civilian body count would have likely been in the 3-5 million range. Â Was it better to kill 250k civilians and avoid that type of chaos and destruction? Â Most people agree that it was.
    Why to invade Japan? You go home and keep your onwn business. Japan was not in US. The US can estimate what help to justify his act. Soldiers job = to fight, so killing less civilians to protect more soldiers = stupid
     
  19. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    What is 9 000 bodies in the WW2? Do you know how many Russians died?
     
  20. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    The US had more than twice the population of Germany and a larger industrial base at the time of WWII, and modern technology, the situation is totally hypothetical, but if they were neighbors and fought a war the US would have likely won.

    However, had they been neighbors, they would never have been allowed to militarize to that large a degree. There are reasons that all of the countries in the western hemisphere are fairly weak.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by