Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 337

Thread: The French are Evil!

  1. #91
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by Rooster
    "When Bush went to war he backstabbed every ally of his that is against war, he backstabbed the sanctity of every country who believes in international law, every country that believes in the sanctity of the UN."

    This is quite hilarious. The UN made itself irrelevent, the US had no need to help it along that path. It refused to back up its own resolutions (not proposed resolutions, actual resolutions passed and unvetoed) and thus made itself into the world's largest, and most overpaid debating society. Iraq violated the terms of its 1991 ceasefire. This was never in question. 1441 proves it was never in question. You foam at the mouth about illegal wars. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the violation of a ceasefire agreement is a very legal method for waging a war. President Bush backstabbed no one in the procescution of this war. This was no sneak attack. This was an opperation perfectly legal by the standards of international law (if such a thing ever existed without the US enforcing it). I'm not accusing Germany or Russia of the same things I'm accusing France of. France deliberately tried to use any method, including sending diplomats to swing vote countries to try to railroad them into voting with the french. That is not the actions of an ally.

    France can burn, and I will laugh. As far as I'm concerned it no longer even exists. Its a shame some of my great uncles had to die in such a worthless place.
    The violation of a cease fire is means to take action to bring the country into agreement with the ceasefire agreements, not to invade said country.

    The US sent diplomats to foreign countries bribing them with oil conessions and such after the war in order to look like it was in the plus on this matter.

    Do you think that the Genevea accords or the Gulf of Tonkein Resolutions, or the SEATO pact also gave us power to go into Veitnam.

    It is a shame you are as ignorant about this as you are, you are so filled with hate that you can not see what is in front of you.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    So Iraq was legal in its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I mean Iraq is a country, and it can decide on its own what it wants to do.

    HOW CAN YOU PUNISH SOMEONE FOR BEING AGINST YOU. THAT IS UNAMERICAN, UNDEMOCRATIC, AND PLAIN WRONG.

    Shame on you for thinking that a citizen of the US can not point the finger at his own country. that sort of action has lead only to death and destruction through the history of the world.
    I never said Iraq was “legal” or not in their invasion on Kuwait. But since you brought it up, their actions were purely for conquest of Kuwait. And to compare that to our actions in Iraq is ludicrous to say the least. It shows such ignorance that I will leave it at that.

    And how can you “punish” someone for being against you? LOL Are you serious? More ignorance obviously caused by the total lack of any real living on your part. I will leave THAT at that.

    And as for shame on ME…. I didn’t say pointing a finger was bad. But neither is spanking a child. But if you never STOP spanking the child, THAT is wrong. But I would bet that you would argue that spanking a child is wrong too… LOL Being you have never raised a child yourself.

    A bit of criticism is one thing, but to constantly complain about EVERY action your country ever takes (or appear to be doing so), that is another story all together. But it is obvious that it is a total waste of time trying to explain that to you. Those who complain about EVERYTHING that guarantees their freedom and way of life, don’t deserve either. But that is just my opinion, I am not stating it as a FACT, only how I feel about the situation.

    www.ShartleyCustoms.com
    Custom Paintball Products and Accessories
    CLICK HERE to Check out our PDU SERIES GEAR!


    its more like a paper cut that has primadonna's yelling murder... - Glickman

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    Originally posted by Rooster
    France can burn, and I will laugh. As far as I'm concerned it no longer even exists. Its a shame some of my great uncles had to die in such a worthless place.
    Have you been there? This is the kind of sentiment in the U.S. that disturbs me. Some may say that France has anti-American sentiment (something I don't really believe) and if they dislike us we can dislike them right back. French attitude, however, does not bother me since they are NOT my country! Perhaps I really am a typical "arrogant American" since I would like to believe our citizenry takes the high road.
    ULE Body Level 10 Automag intelliframe + retrovalve

  4. #94
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by shartley

    I never said Iraq was “legal” or not in their invasion on Kuwait. But since you brought it up, their actions were purely for conquest of Kuwait. And to compare that to our actions in Iraq is ludicrous to say the least. It shows such ignorance that I will leave it at that.

    And how can you “punish” someone for being against you? LOL Are you serious? More ignorance obviously caused by the total lack of any real living on your part. I will leave THAT at that.

    And as for shame on ME…. I didn’t say pointing a finger was bad. But neither is spanking a child. But if you never STOP spanking the child, THAT is wrong. But I would bet that you would argue that spanking a child is wrong too… LOL Being you have never raised a child yourself.

    A bit of criticism is one thing, but to constantly complain about EVERY action your country ever takes (or appear to be doing so), that is another story all together. But it is obvious that it is a total waste of time trying to explain that to you. Those who complain about EVERYTHING that guarantees their freedom and way of life, don’t deserve either. But that is just my opinion, I am not stating it as a FACT, only how I feel about the situation.
    No you didn’t, but I brought it up as a saying that countries CAN NOT just do what it wants. We have the UN that regulates things and makes sure that a country does not just invade another country. Are we going for conquest in Iraq, not in the traditional sense. But we will install a puppet government, US troops will be there for a long time, etc.... We are going to do American imperialism, were you do not for say take over the country, but you can run it through back channels and such. Do you think it is a coincidence that US troops are pulling out of Saudi Arabia at the same time that PX's are being built in Iraq.

    France did not think war was the best solution, it went out to get supporters on its side. The US thought war was the best solution, it went out to get supporters on its side. What is the difference here?

    I don't criticize the government on everything they do. I don't know how you can say that never having met me. Maybe this is a case of your thinking process. That explains some of your points.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Walker, Michigan
    Posts
    178
    I don't think think the President really thought about peace. With the massive build up of troops in the region
    there was no way we would not invade. Thats what happened in WWI except lots more troops.

    Another thing, the French Don't like War, have you guys seen their casuilties in WWI? They lost their will to fight.

    I know its off the subject but I'm to lazy to look for other threads

  6. #96
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by superdesk2007
    I don't think think the President really thought about peace. With the massive build up of troops in the region
    there was no way we would not invade. Thats what happened in WWI except lots more troops.

    Another thing, the French Don't like War, have you guys seen their casuilties in WWI? They lost their will to fight.

    I know its off the subject but I'm to lazy to look for other threads
    The French have never lost their will to fight.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    No you didn’t, but I brought it up as a saying that countries CAN NOT just do what it wants. We have the UN that regulates things and makes sure that a country does not just invade another country. Are we going for conquest in Iraq, not in the traditional sense. But we will install a puppet government, US troops will be there for a long time, etc.... We are going to do American imperialism, were you do not for say take over the country, but you can run it through back channels and such. Do you think it is a coincidence that US troops are pulling out of Saudi Arabia at the same time that PX's are being built in Iraq.

    France did not think war was the best solution, it went out to get supporters on its side. The US thought war was the best solution, it went out to get supporters on its side. What is the difference here?

    I don't criticize the government on everything they do. I don't know how you can say that never having met me. Maybe this is a case of your thinking process. That explains some of your points.
    If we were conducting an illegal action by being in Iraq, then by your admission, it is up to the UN to stop us. They need to form a coalition to remove us from Iraq. If not, we are either not conducting an illegal action, OR the UN is not doing its job. Either way, you just hung yourself in your own arguments.

    As for PX’s, are you even familiar with how the military works? PX’s are put in EVERY PLACE troops will be staying for periods of time. It is about brining in supplies that the soldiers can purchase for themselves. The Military even brings in mobile PX’s to troops deployed for training that takes extended periods of time. At least know something about what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

    The PX’s have NOTHING to do with our pulling out of Saudi Arabia. Heck, we should have pulled out of there a LONG time ago. But that is another issue all together.

    And again, if all you think the French did was try to gather other nations that felt like they did, you show a complete lack of reality. Not only have their actions OTHER than that been stated here on AO, but it is all over the news. If for the sake of argument all they DID do was what you claim they did, I would AGREE with you. That is their right. But simply put, that is NOT all they did.

    Now, as for my thinking process… surely you jest. You have done NOTHING but bash the US, our government, our leaders, etc. from the moment anyone complained about any other country. But you want to fall back on the fact that I have never “met” you? Give me a break. My thought process should not be in question…. Yours on the other hand is baffling at best.

  8. #98
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by shartley

    If we were conducting an illegal action by being in Iraq, then by your admission, it is up to the UN to stop us. They need to form a coalition to remove us from Iraq. If not, we are either not conducting an illegal action, OR the UN is not doing its job. Either way, you just hung yourself in your own arguments.

    As for PX’s, are you even familiar with how the military works? PX’s are put in EVERY PLACE troops will be staying for periods of time. It is about brining in supplies that the soldiers can purchase for themselves. The Military even brings in mobile PX’s to troops deployed for training that takes extended periods of time. At least know something about what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

    The PX’s have NOTHING to do with our pulling out of Saudi Arabia. Heck, we should have pulled out of there a LONG time ago. But that is another issue all together.

    And again, if all you think the French did was try to gather other nations that felt like they did, you show a complete lack of reality. Not only have their actions OTHER than that been stated here on AO, but it is all over the news. If for the sake of argument all they DID do was what you claim they did, I would AGREE with you. That is their right. But simply put, that is NOT all they did.

    Now, as for my thinking process… surely you jest. You have done NOTHING but bash the US, our government, our leaders, etc. from the moment anyone complained about any other country. But you want to fall back on the fact that I have never “met” you? Give me a break. My thought process should not be in question…. Yours on the other hand is baffling at best.
    Believe me I know all about Px's. In Bosnia they have mobile PX's and in some areas they still have tents. Meaning they are there temporary. But in Iraq they are building buildings, not using temporary measures, but building permanent or extended stay facilities. Please know about these things before you post. And yes the US pulling out of Saudi Arabia and the US in Iraq are together, not separate.

    The US invaded Iraq illegally. They had no UN resolution to back backing their invasion. They had no UN mandate calling for the removal of Saddam and his party.

    The UN should step into Iraq and stop the US, but they won't, the same reason the president and other members of this war will not be charged with war crimes. The US is too powerful for anything to be done. But let it be a smaller nation do the exact same thing, the outcome will be different. But that doesn't make the US's actions right or legal.

    List this actions, for I have heard so many rumors that it is pitiful, half the stuff being told is false the other half is suspicious. So what has been proven that the French did.

    No I have never bashed the US. I dislike Bush for he is an idiot who wouldn't know how to tie his shoes if his advisors didn't help him. Remember Mr. President. Make a bunny ear, wrap the lace around the bunny ear, yes that is good.

    No your thought process should be questioned with the stuff you come up with.
    Last edited by Collegeboy; 05-01-2003 at 12:30 PM.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    CB I DO know about those things (PX's being built), and that is because we are expecting troops there for 2-5 years. Maybe YOU should know about things before YOU post?

    The rest of your post does not need responding to, it has all been answered before and is in the various posts on AO as well as on the news. But you always want people to “show you”, or to “prove to you”, something. I am tired of your games. If you are too stupid to read the posts on AO or listen to the news, nothing I can say will help you.

    And I don’t “come up with” anything. LOL Unlike yourself.

    Good day.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy

    Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Hum, interesting.
    no, not really.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Walker, Michigan
    Posts
    178
    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    The French have never lost their will to fight.
    What I meant was the French people have lost the will to fight, not the leaders. Look at WWII they just rolled over, the French people didn't care people wouldn't deliver messages to generals because it was their lunch break. Incompetant generals helped.

    My Mother who spent years in France learned they didn't have the will to.


    I would like to say something else while I'm on the subject;
    the Maginot Line DID work it made the Germans go through Belguim and Luxemburg.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    I dislike Bush for he is an idiot who wouldn't know how to tie his shoes if his advisors didn't help him. Remember Mr. President. Make a bunny ear, wrap the lace around the bunny ear, yes that is good.
    And the reason will out.

    Finally you admit why you're the way you are.

    Nothing but being petty.

    Bravo, you and your education.

    Guess what. Bush has his MBA. And you?

    That's what I thought.

    Schmuck.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Walker, Michigan
    Posts
    178
    I agree with collegboy that the invasion was illegal,
    We went in on the rumors that they have WMD's and helped terrorists.

    Let's not forget we wanted Saddam to kill a leader in Iraq in the 60's or 70's

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Walker, Michigan
    Posts
    178
    I also agree with collegeboy about Bush, who in my opinion has gone way to far. Several years from now we will reinstate the draft because our forces will be all over the world which will instigate terrorists.

    Thats all I have to say.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    CB- I think your stance on the legality of the Iraq invasion is foolish when it comes to a nation that props up the U.N. (which we do). In this case invasion, war, and national security are not the arenas of legal debating and the quoting of of obscure laws.

    The real issue is that of national interest. Was it in the national interest of the U.S. to invade Iraq without U.N. backing? Is it in the national interest for the U.S. to prop up an organization for the U.N. as an example for other countries to try and use the U.N. as a means of solving conflicts peacefully? Also now that the war is over the issue becomes is the U.S. going to find itself with problems in another country that have little to do with its national interests (i.e. long term peacekeeping)? Finally now that the war is over should the U.S. try to reform bonds with NATO allies? These are the central issues and here is where many of us disagree on the board. Few Americans worry about the legality of it all or whether our President should be tried for breaking international laws. Only a fool (sorry but it is the truth) would think that it is in our national interests to see a U.S. president on trail in international courts. Surely you can see that the very concept is ridiculous as we are the country that bears the majority of the responsibility in propping up such concepts as international law.

    On some points I agree with you. I think we plan on having a presence in Iraq for some time (beyond peace keeping). I think we are planning on installing a regime that is friendly to us and will be reliant on us (and while this is not as enlightened and high minded as our propaganda of Iraqi freedom that does not necessarily mean that it is a bad deal for the Iraqi people). There is a strong argument that this arrangement will be good for the Iraqi people and good for the U.S. as well. To say that is not the case is ridiculous. The problem I have, however, is listening to citizens proclaiming we are there purely for Iraqi interests because we heard of their plight and came to their rescue. Let the administration play that angle but let us at least admit to ourselves that we (like the French, Germans, and Russians) are there primarily for our interest and not be hypocrites and cast stones. The other issue for me is that I don't think that the destruction of the U.N. is in the best interests of the United States and I especially don't think that our interests in Iraq outweigh our interests in keeping the U.N. propped up. Finally I think that we are being totally niave in thinking that we are going to install a regime friendly to us (with them waving U.S. flags and falling to their knees and thanking us whenever we happen to drive by in a Humvee). I worry we will be forced to pull out as the local population grows in hostility and that we may have expended all of the man power (including precious casulties of war on both sides) and resources just to see another unfriendly regime unfold. So in the end I don't think it was a good idea to invade without a U.N. mandate (which I think was entirely possible with more diplomacy) and I worry about our continued occupation of the region. The legality of the whole issue, however, is a moot point and really not worth arguing about.

    EDITED FOR ERRORS
    Last edited by aaron_mag; 05-01-2003 at 01:43 PM.

  16. #106
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by shartley
    CB I DO know about those things (PX's being built), and that is because we are expecting troops there for 2-5 years. Maybe YOU should know about things before YOU post?

    The rest of your post does not need responding to, it has all been answered before and is in the various posts on AO as well as on the news. But you always want people to “show you”, or to “prove to you”, something. I am tired of your games. If you are too stupid to read the posts on AO or listen to the news, nothing I can say will help you.

    And I don’t “come up with” anything. LOL Unlike yourself.

    Good day.
    How many years have we had troops in Bosnia. My mom’s friend has been there for a total of 5.

    I want to know what you think true and what is not. Too many people are posting falsities that it isn't funny. So before I can go discussing with you what the French did and did not do or were they wrong, I have to know what you think they did.

    The French did not just roll over in WWII. My father was born in France and lived in France from 1938 to 1940, then again from 1945 to his graduation in 1956. History tells us that the French are the first to fight for what they feel is right.

    And how did Bush get his MBA. It wasn't for his grades I can tell you that.


    FOL answer the question.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blaaaaah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah.


    FOL answer the question.
    The answer is, you're still an idiot.

    Useful perhaps, but an idiot nonetheless.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    The Roost, Ohio
    Posts
    1,069
    "The violation of a cease fire is means to take action to bring the country into agreement with the ceasefire agreements, not to invade said country. "

    You are incorrect. A ceasefire is a contract. Break the contract and the war is back on. Its not a document that makes us Sadam's legal gaurdian to make sure he stays out of trouble.

    The ceasefire was broken, thus the firing begins again.

  19. #109
    Collegeboy Guest
    I guess we all know now who FOL is. He is a guy who can't hold a discussion, can not answer a question towards what he says, and refuses to do so. He is afraid to answer a simple question, and all he can do is call people names. Please FOL if this is all you do why even bother posting in these discussions.

    Rooster, no you are incorrect. By violating a peace treaty doesn't mean the war is back on, if that was the case we would be in a war everyday of our life. It means measures can be taken to get the country to stay in agreement with the treaty, but war it doesn't support.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Breaking a treaty does not mean people instantly go to war again. BUT it does mean there is grounds for it, and that if the party that had the treaty broken on CHOOSES to, there is justification for resumed actions. Yes, the second party CAN choose a wide range of things to try to bring the first party into compliance, but WAR is one of those choices. Because it isn’t the ONLY choice does not mean it isn’t a viable choice given any number of situations.

    CB you always oversimplify people’s comments, and over complicate simple things whenever it suits your arguing needs.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    I guess we all know now who FOL is. He is a guy who can't hold a discussion, can not answer a question towards what he says, and refuses to do so. He is afraid to answer a simple question, and all he can do is call people names. Please FOL if this is all you do why even bother posting in these discussions.
    You'd really like everyone to think that wouldn't you.

    The simple fact is, YOU are the only one I call an idiot here.

    YOU are the only one that's earned it.

  22. #112
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by FactsOfLife


    You'd really like everyone to think that wouldn't you.

    The simple fact is, YOU are the only one I call an idiot here.

    YOU are the only one that's earned it.
    Yet another post without answering the question. What are you scared of.

    Shartley, to go to war the said country will have to then go to the UN on which the UN will see if there are grounds for a war or not. Since this was a UN lead mission in Iraq (Gulf War) and a UN lead peace, the UN declares war. No country can take it upon themselves to invade another country in the name of a UN peace treaty.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    FOL and I rarely agree on anything and he often ends our discussions with a smart *** comment. He is not, however, an idiot nor is he afraid of debate. I take his parting comments in our discussion in the spirit they were meant (at least I believe they were meant) which is basically that we are too far apart on our opinions so there is no need to continue rehashing the same points to infinity....Besides some of his smart assed remarks are creative and funny (even when they are against me)

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    331

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    The French asked the US in 1941 or so to help defend their nation against the Germans. The US said no. The French pleaded for the US to help kick out Germany from France from 1941 to when they finally did in 1945.

    The French pleaded for US help in Vietnam and Dienmenpheu, the US said no.

    All of the above examples lead to deaths of countless French men and woman, and don't even think they don't remember that.

    Don't you know they remember the US only going into WWII when it was clear the German Army was weakened by the Russians, don't you know they remember that the US was not going to land in France to liberate the French but instead the Balkans until it became certain that it was going to take more men there, and why not let the Russians worry about it. So the US then went to France. Sort of a last choice.

    The problem is the French do not have a short memory they have a LONG and good memory.

    And yes 1de, Alabama is a top 50 school, and is the same rank as Ohio St.

    The French was for disarming Iraq the only way possible. We are now seeing little tasting of the problems the US now faces. They are already being asked to leave, US citizens are already asking for troops to come home. Everything that goes wrong now is blamed on the US.

    Casingbill, if you can’t argue or debate against me, then don’t post.
    First of all, France was completely conquered by May of '40 and by '41 all but the resistance were enjoying the occupation.

    Second, we did not enter WWII because Russia had weakened the Germans, we entered a war with Japan in Dec. of '41 and we wouldn't have entered the war with Germany had Hitler not declared war on us on Dec. 15, 1941. On a similar note Russia was weak in '41 and retreating at that time the Nazis were within 50 miles of Moscow (Russia's capital you might like to know) so it was the opposite of your statement. The Russians were weak and the Germans strong.

    Third the turning points in the war were the the battles for Midway and Stalingrad (you've probably never heard of them) both of which were in '42 and '43.

    If you're taking a history class at your college I'd ask for my money back.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by Collegeboy

    Shartley, to go to war the said country will have to then go to the UN on which the UN will see if there are grounds for a war or not. Since this was a UN lead mission in Iraq (Gulf War) and a UN lead peace, the UN declares war. No country can take it upon themselves to invade another country in the name of a UN peace treaty.
    Actually, did I say THIS situation? I was addressing your general comments about breaking a peace treaty. You were wrong. WAR is one of the choices for actions taken because a treaty or cease fire is broken. PERIOD.

    As for us declaring war, we would not have HAD to if the UN had backed up its own words. They simply didn’t. And the US as well as a whole lot of other countries felt that it was in their best interest to take action…. And thus DID so. You may not agree with those actions, and officially the UN may not have either, but that does not make the actions ILLEGAL as you claim.

    And all it takes in one VETO to make something “not UN approved” no matter how many countries agree with the action. And THAT is what was being faced. It is all a game of technicalities. The same as people trying to make the “cause” of this war on one or two reasons, when the fact of the matter is that there are a good half dozen reasons for it.

    And it has been building for a long time, and it was far from “rushed into” like many would like to claim either.

    Those who are against the war can come up with many reasons for claiming it is “unjust”, and those for the war can come up with many reasons for it being just. Whatever. It will not solve anything at all, and the fact remains that we DID go to war, and we want our troops back as soon as possible. This will take years, but we are used to having our troops rotated in and out of places for years on end.

    And only history will tell if our actions were for the betterment of mankind. I happen to believe they ARE, you seem to believe they are not. Oh well, such is life. But no amount of arguing will change a damn thing…….

  26. #116
    Collegeboy Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by m-98


    First of all, France was completely conquered by May of '40 and by '41 all but the resistance were enjoying the occupation.

    Second, we did not enter WWII because Russia had weakened the Germans, we entered a war with Japan in Dec. of '41 and we wouldn't have entered the war with Germany had Hitler not declared war on us on Dec. 15, 1941. On a similar note Russia was weak in '41 and retreating at that time the Nazis were within 50 miles of Moscow (Russia's capital you might like to know) so it was the opposite of your statement. The Russians were weak and the Germans strong.

    Third the turning points in the war were the the battles for Midway and Stalingrad (you've probably never heard of them) both of which were in '42 and '43.

    If you're taking a history class at your college I'd ask for my money back.
    Nope not all of France was conquered. Only the Northern part.

    You are correct about the entering the war in Europe after Hitler declared war, but that doesn't detract from what I said. You do not judge what the US did in WWII to what they did in 1941, for the US didn't do anything in 1941, it wasn't until later on that the US landed in Africa, then in Italy, then in France.

    And no Stalingrad is not the turning point that people think it is. The siege of Moscow was a greater turning point then Stalingrad. Heck I even think the end of the siege at Leningrad was better then Stalingrad, heck I think kursk was better then Stalingrad. Get it, Stalingrad is not what it is made out to be.

    If I need to get my money back for I am not learning your brand of history then I would be glad to and then enroll in a better course for you have about a 5 grade knowledge of history.

    Funny you say I don't know what Stalingrad (now Volgograd) or even Moscow is, kind of funny. Would you like for me to pick you up anything this summer when I will be there? TBL HE ZHAEWB

    Did the UN sanction the invasion? That is about the only question that needs to be asked.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy

    Did the UN sanction the invasion? That is about the only question that needs to be asked.
    That is the only question that needs to be asked IF you believe that the US can’t make decisions for itself, or in its own best interest (not to mention what the US considers its obligation to the world since every time the world NEEDS something, they hold their hands out to the US… LOL). You obviously believe that the US can’t, or should not be allowed to. I on the other hand believe that we can, should, and will continue to do so.

    I think you are just pissed because the US and a whole lot of other countries had the balls to do the right thing in spite of the UN. Oh well. Like I said, time will tell… not YOU. And that just chaps your rear… LOL No matter how much you claim to be right, no matter how much you argue, no matter how much you twist things around, it didn’t stop a darn thing form happening, nor is changing anything at all now.

    Don’t worry, you will get over it……

  28. #118
    Collegeboy Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by shartley

    That is the only question that needs to be asked IF you believe that the US can’t make decisions for itself, or in its own best interest (not to mention what the US considers its obligation to the world since every time the world NEEDS something, they hold their hands out to the US… LOL). You obviously believe that the US can’t, or should not be allowed to. I on the other hand believe that we can, should, and will continue to do so.

    I think you are just pissed because the US and a whole lot of other countries had the balls to do the right thing in spite of the UN. Oh well. Like I said, time will tell… not YOU. And that just chaps your rear… LOL No matter how much you claim to be right, no matter how much you argue, no matter how much you twist things around, it didn’t stop a darn thing form happening, nor is changing anything at all now.

    Don’t worry, you will get over it……
    Nope I am saddened that the President and his oil concession friends and you all don't realize the Pandora’s box they have opened.

    I don't think the US should be allowed to invade another country, just as much as I don't think Iraq should invade another country, or Canada invade another country, or Mozanwanawanabangbang invade another country.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    Nope I am saddened that the President and his oil concession freinds and you all don't realize the Pandora’s box they have opened.

    I don't think the US should be allowed to invade another country, just as much as I don't think Iraq should invade another country, or Canada invade another country, or Mozanwanawanabangbang invade another country.
    Okay, so you stated your opinion. I disagree with it. Oh well……

    And to compare the US liberating Iraq with Iraq trying to take and then control Kuwait just shows pure ignorance. That is more of that oversimplification you like to do that I was talking about.

    Yeah, CB knows so much better than anyone else… it must be hard being right all the time and so smart and wise yet the world continues to go on without consulting you or doing what you think is right. Seriously, that must suck……..

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    331

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    Nope not all of France was conquered. Only the Northern part.

    You are correct about the entering the war in Europe after Hitler declared war, but that doesn't detract from what I said. You do not judge what the US did in WWII to what they did in 1941, for the US didn't do anything in 1941, it wasn't until later on that the US landed in Africa, then in Italy, then in France.

    And no Stalingrad is not the turning point that people think it is. The siege of Moscow was a greater turning point then Stalingrad. Heck I even think the end of the siege at Leningrad was better then Stalingrad, heck I think kursk was better then Stalingrad. Get it, Stalingrad is not what it is made out to be.

    If I need to get my money back for I am not learning your brand of history then I would be glad to and then enroll in a better course for you have about a 5 grade knowledge of history.

    Funny you say I don't know what Stalingrad (now Volgograd) or even Moscow is, kind of funny. Would you like for me to pick you up anything this summer when I will be there? TBL HE ZHAEWB

    Did the UN sanction the invasion? That is about the only question that needs to be asked.
    First, there was no seige of Moscow the Germans got close to it but there was no actual seige.

    Second, Stalingrad was a turning point because it was the last major German offensive on the Eastern front.

    Third, France did roll over, it took six weeks for the Germans to reach Paris. Also, France surrendered in May of '40 signifying their fall. By the way the Germans did not have to conquer southern France because the French had all ready surrendered so there was no point. If the Germans did not "conquer" France then we did not conquer Japan because we did not fight any battles on the main Japanese home islands.

    Fourth, we couldn't start any major operations in '41 because we were still hurting from Pearl Harbor and you could't move troops fast enough for us to start major operations in 2 weeks and we needed to plan.

    I take back some of the things about you not knowing things but you are still incorrect about things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •