Iraqisation of the conflict ?

[padisha emperor]

And you cannot understand that your ally didn't follow you, it is correct ?

 

[Merlin1047]

Do you think that it is a good idea ?
In Vietnam the USA did that, a vietnamisation of the war. At least, the communist tanks entered in Saigon.....so failure.

I suppose that's another thing for which we can thank French government. We let the French "Americanize" the war in Viet Nam. What we should have done was help the Vietnamese kick the French colonialists the hell out of their country.

 

[padisha emperor]

I'm not suer that you know well the ndochina war.
Of course, US help french, like Chenault and his Flying Tigers, and we thank USA for it.
But if you say that USA did Vietnam war after, in the 60's and 70's, because France called the US help.....it is bad faith.

US helped not France because they wanted to help France, US were against this colonial war. US helped France because US wanted to hinder communists.

After the french leaving, the US come back, first with the Special Forces, and after with the Army.

There is only thing you can reproach to France : the lost of war. but UAS know that win in a such country is hard : france like USA won a lot of battles, but at least fail.
France understood that it will be impossible to win against a guerrilla in the jungle. So the generals wanted to atttract the Viets and crush them. But Dien Bien Phu was a "beautiful disaster". French resists really heroicly, with panache, but 15,000 against more than 100,000, and with the ennemy on the hills with big artillery....


And you know, after this defeat, France could continue the fight. but the paece conference, with USA and other, decided that war was finished.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally Posted by padisha emperor
And after you dare to tell me that French are arrogant....
Alexander, Caesar, August, Trojan, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Philippe II Auguste, Charles VII, Charles Quint, Louis XIII, XIV, Nelson, Napoleon, Bismarck, Foch, Joffre, Eisenhower, Montgomery, Nimitz....you are right, the US invasion of Iraq have to be put on the side of these men....it is the same thing...

Joan of Arc, Louis XV, Duke of Wellington, General Washington, General and President Grant, Roosevelt, Truman, John Kennedy, Lincoln, Reagan could also be added.

No, you're ridiculous : think one second : maybe it took 10 years for Germany and Japan : but after this time, the 2 countries belong to the heavy weight of the world economy.
In 1957, only 12 years afetr the war who totally destruct Germany, France and Germany grounded the EU. Before, the both countries alreadu have trade arrangements.

Yes, what came out of our liberation of France and Germany, and Japan, and Italy was ultimately the best known path for them. If we can carry out to ten years or as necessary, Iraq too will benefit from the American liberation effort. Unfortunately contemporary democrats will never see the conflict as a liberation. For them it will always be an occupation, at best. And this will lead them to kowtow to every demand that surrounding middle east regimes and cultural 'authorities' ask of them( with the intent of making Iraq reconstruction fail). Even when John Kerry shows support for continuing the war, it is as an occupation and not as a liberation.

 

[nbdysfu]

NightTrain, it's good to see you here and right on target! This poor French guy, doesn't understand that what happened to Germany, in the sense of 'destruction' was the result of the real use of 'carpetbombing' since there was no such thing as 'precision bombing.'

Guernica once applied to Axis air bombing runs against civilian towns in Spain, now it bares more semblance to the havoc that terrorists have wreaked on their supposed brethren in Iraq and US citizens in New York.

Japan of course, was a different case altogether, the harbinger of what 'could have become' the face of the next modern war.

And if Iran has anything to do with it, primitive nuclear weapons will become a common item on the battlefield.

 

[padisha emperor]

post by nbdysfu

Originally Posted by padisha emperor
And after you dare to tell me that French are arrogant....
Alexander, Caesar, August, Trojan, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Philippe II Auguste, Charles VII, Charles Quint, Louis XIII, XIV, Nelson, Napoleon, Bismarck, Foch, Joffre, Eisenhower, Montgomery, Nimitz....you are right, the US invasion of Iraq have to be put on the side of these men....it is the same thing...



Joan of Arc, Louis XV, Duke of Wellington, General Washington, General and President Grant, Roosevelt, Truman, John Kennedy, Lincoln, Reagan could also be added

posted by me :

For the list of the great men, I forget Patton, yes. I forget also Leonidas, Themistocle, Miltiade, Turennes, Condé, Vauban - great man - , Bailli de Suffren, La Fayette, Rochambeau, De Grasse, Dumouriez, Hoche, Jourdan, Murat, Davout, Lannes, Augereau, Soult, Ney, Blücher, Sherman, Lee, Jackson, JEB Stuart, Grant, Longstreet, Farragut, Mc Arthur, Halsey, Spruance. You see, the great men of military History are really a lot.

so, you see, i did an add-on after

But you give name of President, I gave name of military men. I put Philippe II, Charles VII, Louis XIII, Louis XIV because they lead perosnly their army when they could. they were real military chiefs.
Like the french/austrian/ but more spanish Charles Quint.

For what you said, sure, occupation is different than liberation.
But explain what you've posted to Insein, I only said that the situation between Iraq and germany/Japan should not be comapre, and alos that the Iraq campain of 2003 have not to be compare with the great military events of History, and above all not to Austerlitz and Overlord.

 

[dilloduck]

post by nbdysfu


posted by me :



so, you see, i did an add-on after

But you give name of President, I gave name of military men. I put Philippe II, Charles VII, Louis XIII, Louis XIV because they lead perosnly their army when they could. they were real military chiefs.
Like the french/austrian/ but more spanish Charles Quint.

For what you said, sure, occupation is different than liberation.
But explain what you've posted to Insein, I only said that the situation between Iraq and germany/Japan should not be comapre, and alos that the Iraq campain of 2003 have not to be compare with the great military events of History, and above all not to Austerlitz and Overlord.

Well now that the French army is controlled by Kofi Annan maybe your casualty rate will go down.

 

[padisha emperor]

ho ho ho....
And you, you're proud of your army's leader, a fanatic evangelist who only read Bible, and who don't speak correctly ?

when would the US wars finish ? 2001 : Afghanistan, 2003 : Iraq, 2004 : Iran ? 2005 : Syria ? 2006 : Lebanon ? 2007 : Rest of the World ?

 

[dilloduck]

ho ho ho....
And you, you're proud of your army's leader, a fanatic evangelist who only read Bible, and who don't speak correctly ?

when would the US wars finish ? 2001 : Afghanistan, 2003 : Iraq, 2004 : Iran ? 2005 : Syria ? 2006 : Lebanon ? 2007 : Rest of the World ?

At least my leader is an American---I noticed you accepted Kofi Annan as your commander in chief. Smart move--he won't send your troops anywhere.

 

[padisha emperor]

you said something stupid. I don't want to waste my time to answer to you.
I could say everything, you won't change of mind. So, i say nothing. Believe what you want, if it enjoy yourself, i'm happy for you......

 

[dilloduck]

you said something stupid. I don't want to waste my time to answer to you.
I could say everything, you won't change of mind. So, i say nothing. Believe what you want, if it enjoy yourself, i'm happy for you......

That would be an example of French arrogance I assume?

 

[padisha emperor]

No.
where do you see the arrogance ?
arrogance would be : "we are the best, we don't care about the others, we do all we want, let us quiet, we are the strongest".

oh ! it was Bush do actually... it's amazing

 

[dilloduck]

No.
where do you see the arrogance ?
arrogance would be : "we are the best, we don't care about the others, we do all we want, let us quiet, we are the strongest".

oh ! it was Bush do actually... it's amazing

The arrogance is that you feel as if you are so superior that you do not even need to respond to my statements.

 

[CSM]

No.
where do you see the arrogance ?
arrogance would be : "we are the best, we don't care about the others, we do all we want, let us quiet, we are the strongest".

oh ! it was Bush do actually... it's amazing

Well, lets take this point by point:

"We are the best" . Pride in your country is natural. Despite the politically correct view that nationilism is wrong. There are many many things that a United States citizen can be proud of.

"We dont care about others". Pretty hard to justify given that the United States provides tons of foreign aid in the form of materials and money to many other countries.

"We do all we want". Ummm...that's why we formed a nation in the first place; so did the good citizens of France and any other country in the world. We dont have to do what "they" want.

"Let us quiet". If you mean "leave us alone" again, that's why we formed a nation and made it strong, so other countries (like France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Spain and so forth) would leave us alone.

"We are the strongest". Yes we are (for the time being).

 

[padisha emperor]

"We dont care about others". Pretty hard to justify given that the United States provides tons of foreign aid in the form of materials and money to many other countries.

"We do all we want". Ummm...that's why we formed a nation in the first place; so did the good citizens of France and any other country in the world. We dont have to do what "they" want.


I meant :

"we don't care about others" : "what they think ? we don't care. we do the world justice because we are the stronger". No. It should not be like that.

"we do all I want" : not in the country, but in the world : " we make war when it pleases to us, the international rules, it is useless, we want attack a poor country ? let's go".

I don't speak of US citizens, but of GW Bush.

Now, dilloduck : i'm not arrogant, and I do'nt think I am superior. I only meant that you believe that france is rules by Kofi Annan, so if you want. I can do all the answers of the world, you 'll think always that.

 

[dilloduck]

"We dont care about others". Pretty hard to justify given that the United States provides tons of foreign aid in the form of materials and money to many other countries.

"We do all we want". Ummm...that's why we formed a nation in the first place; so did the good citizens of France and any other country in the world. We dont have to do what "they" want.


I meant :

"we don't care about others" : "what they think ? we don't care. we do the world justice because we are the stronger". No. It should not be like that.

"we do all I want" : not in the country, but in the world : " we make war when it pleases to us, the international rules, it is useless, we want attack a poor country ? let's go".

I don't speak of US citizens, but of GW Bush.

Now, dilloduck : i'm not arrogant, and I do'nt think I am superior. I only meant that you believe that france is rules by Kofi Annan, so if you want. I can do all the answers of the world, you 'll think always that.

I'll try a simpler question---would France wait for UN approval to defend itself?

 

[CSM]

"We dont care about others". Pretty hard to justify given that the United States provides tons of foreign aid in the form of materials and money to many other countries.

"We do all we want". Ummm...that's why we formed a nation in the first place; so did the good citizens of France and any other country in the world. We dont have to do what "they" want.


I meant :

"we don't care about others" : "what they think ? we don't care. we do the world justice because we are the stronger". No. It should not be like that.

"we do all I want" : not in the country, but in the world : " we make war when it pleases to us, the international rules, it is useless, we want attack a poor country ? let's go".

I don't speak of US citizens, but of GW Bush.

Now, dilloduck : i'm not arrogant, and I do'nt think I am superior. I only meant that you believe that france is rules by Kofi Annan, so if you want. I can do all the answers of the world, you 'll think always that.

We dont care what the rest of the world thinks because the US citizens KNOW the rest of the world does not have OUR best interests at heart. Each nation has their own interests at heart....even France. International rules made by whom? The UN? France? Countries that want to restrict the actions of one nation under international law while they ignore that same international law to pursue their own interests?

As for the US attacking poor countries just because we feel like it, then I guess we had better stay out of Sudan, Rhuwanda, Ethiopa and all those other "poor" countries. We'll leave those problems to the UN I guess, because they are so effective at resolving conflict.

 

[padisha emperor]

As for the US attacking poor countries just because we feel like it, then I guess we had better stay out of Sudan, Rhuwanda, Ethiopa and all those other "poor" countries. We'll leave those problems to the UN I guess, because they are so effective at resolving conflict.

So, give the dirty job to UN, and let us make war....

We dont care what the rest of the world thinks because the US citizens KNOW the rest of the world does not have OUR best interests at heart. Each nation has their own interests at heart....even France. International rules made by whom? The UN? France? Countries that want to restrict the actions of one nation under international law while they ignore that same international law to pursue their own interests?

i only maent that if USA ratificate the UN charter and approve the UNO, they MUST conform themselves to it. Like everybody.

When you play football, you agree the rules. And even if you begin to loose, you 'll not change the rules, even if it is against your interests - the victory - .

So, respect the UN. respect the rules of the games.

 

[CSM]

So, give the dirty job to UN, and let us make war....



i only maent that if USA ratificate the UN charter and approve the UNO, they MUST conform themselves to it. Like everybody.

When you play football, you agree the rules. And even if you begin to loose, you 'll not change the rules, even if it is against your interests - the victory - .

So, respect the UN. respect the rules of the games.

We are in agreement. My comments about poor countries were sarcasm; sorry, I should have been more specific. As for the comments about abiding by the UN Charter, I was implying that your attitude is exactly that of the French government: The United States should, rather MUST, abide by the UN's wishes. In the meantime, the nation of France ignores the UN resolutions and sells weapons to Iraq. That is what we mean by French arrogance and hypocricy. Thanks for making my point.

 

[padisha emperor]

We are in agreement. My comments about poor countries were sarcasm; sorry, I should have been more specific. As for the comments about abiding by the UN Charter, I was implying that your attitude is exactly that of the French government: The United States should, rather MUST, abide by the UN's wishes. In the meantime, the nation of France ignores the UN resolutions and sells weapons to Iraq. That is what we mean by French arrogance and hypocricy. Thanks for making my point

posted by me :

So i don't tell you to subvert the US Constitution to the UN charters, but only to respect what you've signed. For France also, about the trade of weapons. UN charters is not superior. but If USA aproove it and ratificated it.....

I hope this would make you see, that I agree about the problem of trade of weapons...
And that I'm not I'm not hypocrite.

But in this subject - Iraqisation... - I don't speak of France, except if there is question about. I speak of USA. there is alredy lots of threads about french connection.
I was only speaking of USA.

Don't take me as a french, take me as a human beeing. I say that USA should repect the rules. I 've not said that France respected it. But both have to.

And if you say to me : "France doesn't repect, why will USA repect ,", it will be quite stupid : It is not because somebody did a mistake that you can follow to do the same mistake....a clever attitude would be that USA would repect the UN, so they'll show to Europe and France that they - USA - are fair.