The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 13 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So America's role in WW1 was truly irrelevant - the Aussies for instance did much more. It's a grave distortion of history saying that you saved France's butt in WW1.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, despite Americas constantly telling us how ungrateful the French are, the French honour Australian servicemen every year for their role in helping France.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Tony`s furs are swimming down the drain. He`s got terrible problems now to strengthen his own position. As politician he`ll now do everything to protect his power and status. But I think the english population has enough of this slimy winding wannabe Anglo-Napoleon. Send him as punishment to the USA

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 14 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tony`s furs are swimming down the drain. He`s got terrible problems now to strengthen his own position. As politician he`ll now do everything to protect his power and status. But I think the english population has enough of this slimy winding wannabe Anglo-Napoleon. Send him as punishment to the USA  <span id='postcolor'>

If Bony is sent to the colonies and the Tory's take over - thank God the english got rid of Wiliam Vague!

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Mar. 13 2003,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">stick with it, ferret!

eh, that denoir guy is just scramblebrained.  

and that he is for blix-krieg is no surprise. blix is a swedish civil servant. you can't rise any higher in sweden than becoming a civ.

I've been giving the deep fissures appearing between europe and the US over iraq some thought. you know: why is it that they're going rabid with anti-americanism and anti-semitism (again) without being able to present a coherent strategy of their own? (12 years of inspections haven't brought us any further. what do they want? another 12 years? they might die of smallpox thanks to saddam in the meantime.)

three points come to mind:

the US is basically a religious, in many parts a decidedly christian nation.

europe deems to have overcome the religion upon which their civilizations were founded. thus they are angry at the percieved backwardness of the US and mock it.

second: the US is a capitalist country, believing in hard work and making good money.

europeans are at heart socialists, priding themselves in their cushy welfare states (now approaching bankruptcy, while the capitalist US is the hyperpower of the world, showing europe's underlying philosophy to be faulty. arrgh, the anger! the shame! there's only one remedy: fullscale denial!

third: europeans don't believe in the significance of the nation state. they currently seem driven to abolish what is left of their once great nations and desperately try to melt into something grander (?), like the european union, to me a benign form of the old soviet union. they love fuzzy terms like "international community." there's nothing in them that makes them believe in their individual nations. all sing the high praises of being part of some group.

the US on the other hand has since its inception believed that it had a call, that it is the "city on a hill", meant to be a beacon to the world. and it is!

the current iraq crisis is just baring these fissures in the trans-atlantic relationship.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I'm not from Europe, and I think that the current US policy is a load of warmongering bullshit.

You can't blame the fact the majority of the world thinks the US is in the wrong on imagined European anti-Americanism.

But thanks, I got a good laugh out of your post anyway.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 13 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I agree. The reason for that is that we have had 1000 years of nation states and have evolved beyond that. Perhaps you should learn from our experience <span id='postcolor'>

[Disclaimer] I usually don't refer to "Europe" as a collective entity, but will for the duration of this post. [/Disclaimer]

What historical evidence is there to suggest that Europe has evolved to such an enlightened state?  I'd offer WWI, WWII and Kosovo as evidence that it hasn't happened yet.  

Heck, I'd even go so far as to suggest that if someone wanted to learn something from recent European history, it would be that it's better to deal with a small problem before it becomes a big one.

Semper Fi

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 14 2003,00:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heck, I'd even go so far as to suggest that if someone wanted to learn something from recent European history, it would be that it's better to deal with a small problem before it becomes a big one.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm afraid there are enough "big" problems to deal with in the future! If you want to end hostility around the world - directed at the western world as a whole - I suggest we do something about the poverty in the third world and stop subsidising tyrants in those countries.

[Balschoiw 0]

Blair is just on losing his only friend. Bush is upset with the British suggestion to give the inspectors more time. I think the US are pretty alone now with their war plans.

80 percent of the world are opposing the war but it is still justified?

Where is your damn proof ?

Where is your damn justification ?

Home of the brave will fight a country down on it´s knees. What an outstanding triumph...

But you do us euros a favour. You showed us how important it is to stand together and show your administration where it´s borders are. You want to block the euro trade to the US ? What will you say if we freshen our relations to the east and asia ? Definately an option at the moment. The ME countries are also very interested in tightened relations to the old europe. You stand a bit alone, don´t you ?

A big thanx to the US for their contribution towards a strong europe.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 14 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 14 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tony`s furs are swimming down the drain. He`s got terrible problems now to strengthen his own position. As politician he`ll now do everything to protect his power and status. But I think the english population has enough of this slimy winding wannabe Anglo-Napoleon. Send him as punishment to the USA  <span id='postcolor'>

If Bony is sent to the colonies and the Tory's take over - thank God the english got rid of Wiliam Vague!<span id='postcolor'>

What! ? - No one laughed of my William Vague-joke?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Eehm... who is... William Vague?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 14 2003,01:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eehm... who is... William Vague?    <span id='postcolor'>

William Hague - the former Tory-leader.

Possibly the most ineffective and the least charismatic leader they ever had.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1377000/1377309.stm

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 14 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tony`s furs are swimming down the drain. He`s got terrible problems now to strengthen his own position. As politician he`ll now do everything to protect his power and status. But I think the english population has enough of this slimy winding wannabe Anglo-Napoleon. Send him as punishment to the USA  <span id='postcolor'>

Seem like you are right:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to the BBC's UN correspondent Greg Barrow, privately many diplomats say that discussions in the corridors are less about disarming Iraq and more about saving Mr Blair's skin. <span id='postcolor'>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2848593.stm

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 14 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">William Hague - the former Tory-leader.

Possibly the most ineffective and the least charismatic leader they ever had.<span id='postcolor'>

IDC is competing for that honour rather well

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 14 2003,02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 14 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">William Hague - the former Tory-leader.

Possibly the most ineffective and the least charismatic leader they ever had.<span id='postcolor'>

IDC is competing for that honour rather well <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

IDC - sorry placebo but I don't understand?

By the way - I'd like express how sorry I am sometimes for being norwegian! You know - Jinef is right when he claimes norwegians are weird! Just have a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/179728.stm

Could you imagine Churchill on a sick leave? No...I suppose not! I am however not a fan of the norwegian labour party, BUT our former pm Gro Harlem Brundtland had balls. She didn't take one day sick leave when her son topped himself!

edit: oh, one more thing! Norway - together with Iran are the only countries to be lead by a priest

[Akira 0]

////Hush Hush on the QT////

I just recieved a bill on my desk that would increase the tax on French beverages to three times the normal.

[Akira 0]

Since the picture of Rumsfield and Hussein is a popular one here...I thought it only fair to share this one as well...

Picture

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2003,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">////Hush Hush on the QT////

I just recieved a bill on my desk that would increase the tax on French beverages to three times the normal.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta love knee jerk reactionaries.

Of course, these are the same morons who will proceed to bitch and moan if/when France produces some tariffs, duties, and taxes on American goods. And since there really isnt anything that cant be gotten somewhere else...the US should take a kicking in the trade department as they feel the need to alienate more and more foreign countries.

A very learned friend of mine says that history will remember this as the time when the US began to decline as an economic and social power. He also believes that the decline will be sharper if the US decides to buck the UN and go to war withour 'permission'

Anyone think the same way? (please, no flame wars or US bashing! )

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2003,03:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since the picture of Rumsfield and Hussein is a popular one here...I thought it only fair to share this one as well...

Picture<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, but the picture of Rummy and Saddam is a fair bit newer!

Just goes to show you that people deal with rotten people all the time. It's the price of being a politician!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 14 2003,03:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 14 2003,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">////Hush Hush on the QT////

I just recieved a bill on my desk that would increase the tax on French beverages to three times the normal.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta love knee jerk reactionaries.

Of course, these are the same morons who will proceed to bitch and moan if/when France produces some tariffs, duties, and taxes on American goods.  And since there really isnt anything that cant be gotten somewhere else...the US should take a kicking in the trade department as they feel the need to alienate more and more foreign countries.

A very learned friend of mine says that history will remember this as the time when the US began to decline as an economic and social power.  He also believes that the decline will be sharper if the US decides to buck the UN and go to war withour 'permission'

Anyone think the same way? (please, no flame wars or US bashing! )<span id='postcolor'>

I believe you are almost right - but:

Lot's of european exporting companies' largest market is the US. Just think about manufacturers like Porsche, Mercedes and BMW - and not to forget the champagne houses.

The car producers like the german ones are very established as prestige brands but who would have thought Lexus (Toyota) would challenge their hegemony on the US market.

I believe some competitors in the wine, car and food-industry could gain marketshares if the situation gets worse.

However, the most dangerous situation to come is that it get's totally out of control and subsequently the whole world economy collapses. In short - we will all lose!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Yes it would be extremely unfair. Americas participation in WW1 was minimal and irrelevant. You say that you sent 2 million men? Try 30,000 men for the first few months - later when the situation setteled down, you sent more. This in a war where individual battles could kill over 300,000 men. The total number of casualties of ww1 were in the range of 20 million. There were about 53,000 American casualties most that occured in the single larger battle that you were involved in (Meuse-Argonne).<span id='postcolor'>

Someone should have paid more attention in history class. While the AEF’s contribution was insignificant quantitatively, the yanks couldn’t have been more important qualitatively (do Chateau-Thierry or Belleau Wood ring a bell?). By early 1918, the British and French forces were on their last legs. French troops more often then not refused to attack, preferring to defend their trenches (can’t say I blame them, considering the meatgrinder their idiotic commanders had been feeding them through). Also, the British simply did not have the will or the ability to take the additional massive casualties needed to bring the war to any decisive juncture- they’d bled too much already.

Meanwhile, Germany had been victorious on their Eastern front, freeing up thousands of troops to head West. This gave rise to the Luddendorf offensives in May, which were to be the decisive thrusts that would break the Western stalemate and finally achieve victory. The sudden attack towards Paris through the Marne river valley and a simultaneous flanking action against British forces to the north left an enormous gap in Allied lines right near an area that encompassed Vaux, Chateau-Thierry, and Belleau Wood. American forces plugged that gap, and stopped the German offensive cold, incurring 30,000 thousand casualties along the way (did I mention that your numbers were fucked up Denoir? Because they are). This quote fairly well sums up the American’s role during the Second Battle of the Marne:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ...All [German] divisions [along the Marne] achieved brilliant successes, with the exception of the one division on our right wing. This encountered American units! Here only did the Seventh Army, In the course of the first day of the offensive, confront serious difficulties. It met with the unexpectedly stubborn and active resistance of fresh American troops.

While the rest of the divisions of the Seventh Army succeeded in gaining ground and gaining tremendous booty, it proved impossible for us to move the right apex of our line, to the south of the Marne, into a position advantageous for the development of the ensuing fight. The check we thus received was one result of the stupendous fighting between our 10th Division of infantry and American troops...

Erich von Ludendorff, Quartermaster General<span id='postcolor'>

Although the number of Americans involved in WWI were comparatively small, it is undeniable that their intervention came at a critical time. In fact, it is not out of the realm of possibility that if the Americans had not been present to stop the German offensives of May-June 1918, that the Germans would have won WWI. But to say that is moving into the realm of speculation- still, that doesn’t change the fact that the American involvement in WWI was not only significant, but pivotal. We were in the right place at the right time with fresh troops, and that made all the difference. Besides, you can’t really argue with the timeline- 1914-mid 1917: no Americans, no victory. Late 1917-1918, Americans; victory. A bit simplistic, but hey, I ain’t lying. Besides, Americans bled almost everywhere the Brits and French bled: Flanders, the Somme, Suresnes, Oise-Aisne, St. Mihiel, the list goes on.

136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.<span id='postcolor'>

I beg to differ.

I've seen US deaths in WWI listed from 58,000 to around 120,000.

Perhaps if you can explain the discrepancies, I'll take your figures with less than a grain of salt

[Akira 0]

WW1 Casualties

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The precise numbers remain shrouded in the passing of time compounded by the incompleteness of available records.  In the heat of action accurate records were not always kept, and where they were, these were not uncommonly lost in subsequent actions, such were the conditions of trench warfare.<span id='postcolor'>

[Mister 5 0]

Encarta sez:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States lost about 112,000 people, many to disease, including a treacherous influenza epidemic in 1918 that claimed 20 million lives worldwide. European losses were far higher. According to some estimates, World War I killed close to 10 million military personnel.<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, it's basically six, five and pick 'em as far as truly accurate numbers are concerned. The 100,000+ numbers are backed up by numbers of graves, and by the US military itself. Even if I am off, I am certain that 50,000 is far less accurate than my number.

edit: of course, the influenza pandemic seemed to have killed a large number of doughboys... does that count, if they are in the theater of operations but didn't die in combat? That could be a main reason for the huge discrepencies

[HellToupee 0]

ww1 was a stalemate, no sides came close to decisive victory, the frontlines barly moved, all that happened was slaughter after slaughter after slaugter, ww1 was a terrible war, many soldiers were driven mad, everyone of them who went to the trences im sure lost all that national pride BS, they all thought it would be a great adventure.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">136,516 Americans lost their lives during World War I. I think Denoir’s failure to report accurate numbers is a case-in-point as to the veracity of his analysis of the American contribution. Draw your own conclusions.<span id='postcolor'>

Source 1

Source 2

Wow, Tex I didn't know you were such a fan of revisionist history. The Germans didn't lose the war because of the American joining - as a matter of fact, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The German side of the western front had already frozen and was on the verge collapse when US troops entered the conflict.

Why did the Germans lose?

1. the Russians forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts, east and west, until the beginning of 1918;

2. the French stopped the German advance on Paris in 1914, and refused to be defeated at Verdun in 1916;

3. the British inflicted the first major defeat on the Germans at the Somme in 1916;

4. improvements in Allied artillery technology and tactics by the beginning of 1918 made trench warfare obsolete, and this gave the Allies a huge advantage over the outnumbered Germans

5. the Allied blockade of Germany forced the Germans to endure terrible shortages throughout the war, and by the end of October 1918 the German people were ready for revolution; their army had been fighting a defensive war for the past two years, and it was obvious that the Allies were going to win sooner rather than later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, you can’t really argue with the timeline- 1914-mid 1917: no Americans, no victory. Late 1917-1918, Americans; victory. A bit simplistic, but hey, I ain’t lying.<span id='postcolor'>

That is probably the most stupid thing I have heard from you. A bit simplistic??

I am sorry if it hurts your national pride, but take some history lessons. America's contribution to WW1 was just symbolic. And you don't need to make any special interpretations. Look at the facts. Even if we take your 100,000 figure, that's just a drop in the ocean. Take the third battle of Ypres (passchendaele) for instance. It was after the Americans joined in. That battle cost over 325,000 British soldiers. That's one of many battles, and you are whining over your 100,000?

The war was lost on the German part in march 1917 when they ran back to the Hindenburg line. After that it was only a question of time before Germany would lose. It was the beginning of the end.

While I have the highest respect for the US soldiers that did fight in WW1, claiming that they made any strategical difference is just bollocks. It's like claiming that the American Revolutionary War would have been lost without Sweden's help. We sent a couple of hundred of officers and soldiers in 1781 - an whopisdoo! The war started going well for the Americans!