Hi I returned to the list to take a peek at how things are. Just the same I
see!!!
I really must congratulate John on his consistency. I see, for him, the French
are the arseholes of the world right now. BTW John.they may have been a little
lacking militarily recently but before you blow them away completely ask
yourself just how free you would be right now if the US "freedom fighters" (or
were they terrorists..?=0)?) had not been ably assisted by the presence of a
French army of liberation and a not insignificant French fleet pissing off the
British navy!!
<SIGH> time to go again.
hi BOB!
well, i am sure we all know that the FRENCH did this just beause they loved us
poe ole raggedy ass colonials.
it had nothing to do with FRENCH strategic goals or payback for the
war they lost a bit earlier in the colonies?
yah! you bet!
and as far as terrorists, there were a number of bad bastards on both sides of
our war who could be called thusly.
and you can say we payed THE FRENCH back for helping us by helping give them
back their own country after they lost it in WW II?
sound fair enough?
> well, i am sure we all know that the FRENCH did this just beause they
At that time, anything to weaken the British was seen as good move by France.
Shure, they would have liked to have gotten their colonies back, but just
weakening the British was good enough.
> and as far as terrorists, there were a number of bad bastards on both
Tarring and Feathering is a rather horrible way to die.
> and you can say we payed THE FRENCH back for helping us by helping
Actually, a history professor of mine said, "We saved them twice in one
centuary, and they will never forgive us for that."
Cloaking lurker mode off...
> > I returned to the list to take a peek at how things
So how is this different from Louisana electing a Klu Klux Klan leader to
their state government?
> BTW
Excuse me, but a lot of innocent blood shed in that war by both the colonials
and the loyalists. Have you ever heard of the term Taring and Feathering? It
was widely practiced by civilians of both factions in that war. How many homes
of loyalist were burnt AFTER the war ended? The American Revolution was a
vicious revolutionary war. If it were not for France being at the right place
at the right time to end that mess, how much worse would it have been?
> > ?) had not been ably
I have a great idea. Let's bleed the U.S. as France was during the wars of
Louis XIV, the French Revolutionary Wars, and the Wars of Napolean. Then let's
see how good the U.S. Army is a 100 years latter...
> HOWEVER, their singular contribution in the _18th_
Bye, Bob. Nice of you to drop by and chastise us. You'll be missed.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Wed, 29 May 2002 21:02:03 +0200 "Bob DeAngelis" <bobdea@terra.es>
writes:
> Hi
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:00:20 -0400, "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
> So how is this different from Louisana electing a Klu Klux Klan leader
Is David Duke in the State assembly? I don't know enough of local politics,
yet, to know for sure.
He did _not_ win the Governor race, though, if that's what you're
alluding to. Edwards beat him. Edwards is currently awaiting sentencing after
being found
guilty of graft. (Ironically, he was probably _not_ guilty of the one
thing they finally caught him on.) Louisianans voted for Edwards, a known
"crook",
over Duke. My two all-time favourite campaign slogans are, "Vote for the
Crook, it's important" and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard".
However, you do make a good point. There are still pockets of extreme racism
down here. I haven't seen much overt racism among local residents (i.e. people
I live beside). However, I have driven past the "headquarters" of a white
supremacist organization about 50 miles from here, I have seen some David Duke
political stickers in the back woods, and there was some recent vandalizing of
predominantly Black grave markers just over the border in Arkansas this
weekend.
Well as least the subject line is appropriate. Another thread for ther delete
before reading category.
But first a few notes.
On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:00:20 -0400 "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com>
writes:
> Cloaking lurker mode off...
The KKK are significantly unsuccessful compared to the Nazis in their efforts.
> BTW
Depends on how long it went on. By both sides, as you accidentally admitted.
> > ?) had not been ably
And who do you suggest do this? Canada? Too reasonable. Mexico? Too busy
dealing with internal differences and economic woes. Anybody in Central
America? LOL!
Gracias,
On Thu, 30 May 2002 09:00:51 -0500 Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
writes: <snip>, and there was some recent
> vandalizing of
Yeah, that's really productive. Attacking dead people! Duh.
I was going to delete this but made the mistake of reading it.
Turning this into a tread ON topic, how about a scenario in SG II where the
troops (deployed as peacemakers) are assigned to protect an
religious/ethnic graveyard from vandals from group "A" (recognized as
the so called "Good Guys") from attacking a shrine for a past leader of Group
"B" (officially the 'oppressors' that resulted in this intervention in mutual
slaughter)? You could have Vandals from Group "A", Group "A" militia (who
oppose the desecration of 'pagan' shrines but want the 'pagans' gone,) Group
"B" 'self defense militia' force, Group B
Terrorists/freedom fighters trying to get Group "A" vandals (it's an
excuse but it sounds good,) Interventionist "Police" with non-lethal
ROE's and weapons, standby soldiers (from a second nation that identifies with
one side or the other but is supposed to stay neutral as their back up? Oh
yeah, and their ROE is different then the "police" force, in practice at
least.
Gracias,
LOL- yes i got a real laugh t of "bleeding the US ARMY "too
almost choked to death on my iced tea visualizing Canada, Mexico, Central or
South America pulling this off.
> The KKK are significantly unsuccessful compared to the Nazis in their
That is rather obvious. The point is that the French are no worse then the
U.S. when it comes to who wins the elections sometimes.
> >Excuse me, but a lot of innocent blood shed in that war by both the
My point was that it would have gone on longer and even a few more months
would have made the war much worse for some. If it had gone on for a few more
years it would have been much worse for most.
> >I have a great idea. Let's bleed the U.S. as France was during the
> And who do you suggest do this? Canada? Too reasonable. Mexico?
Too
> busy dealing with internal differences and economic woes. Anybody in
The point is that they have had a significant amount of their manpower
slaughtered. This has diminished them in ways that will last for generations.
My comment was to get you to stop and realize this. There was a lot written
after World War 1 by them to lament the shear loss of what they as collective
group were from the slaughter.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 03:15 30/05/02 -0700, Eric wrote:
> And then they'll be back inside seventy years as the most powerful
Twice.
Unfortunately (for American ego's that's not entirely correct) As I previously
mentioned the arrival of fresh American troops had brought forward the end of
the war, but the war was lost to the Germans.
I suggest people go read up on the battles of Hamel, Amiens, Mont St Quentin
and Peronne and of course the Hindenburg Line
For Hamel
http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/battles/hamel.htm
or the lot at
http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/timeline.htm
The battle of Hamel is significant because it was the first time the
Australian Corp was commanded by an Australian officer Lt. General Sir John
Monash.
http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/people/genmonash.htm
PLUS it was the first time American troops were used in offensive operations,
four companies were attached to gain first hand battle experience. For a
digger's view of the new American troops look here.
http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/soldier/sammy.htm
This puts paid to the "fiction" that American troops have only ever been
commanded by Americans, until the British General in the Balkans recently. I
suspect that this isn't the only case as well.
But most importantly Hamel and the Battle of Amiens put paid to trench
warfare, the war in France had shifted to a mobile phase.
Basically, yes the American troops like everyone else had something to offer
BUT America did not turn up, say "step back guys" and then single handed boot
the Germans out of France.
> Sorry, dude... you've got some rather bad cards to play, I'd say. I'd
Sorry, DUDE... I don't play cards.
History.... Never as simple as you think, but always interesting:)
Cheers
> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:
> That is rather obvious. The point is that the French are no worse
Ah, but they're also no better:)
> The point is that they have had a significant amount of their manpower
There was
> a lot written after World War 1 by them to lament the shear loss of
Just as there was by many other nations. Ever hear of the "Slaughter of the
Innocents" of WWI? That's the period of time in early 1915 when the best and
brightest of Germany were mowed down and wasted on the battlefields of France.
Didn't seem to impinge on their ability to fight in the following war,
although it likely contributed to the rise of Hitler since many of the
otherwise thinking people weren't around to oppose him. Also don't forget that
the Brits suffered at least as badly did the French, and we don't seem to see
them as having a reputation for lack of military prowess because of it. Even
the United States saw the loss of the better part of a generation of young men
in our own Civil War, and while it did definitely have an effect, I don't
think you can point to that as a reason. Face it, the reason young men are
sent to fight wars is because they are 1) the most capable to do so, and 2)
the most expendable. It's always been that way, and I don't see it as a
justification for why a particular nation may have the reputation it does.
> --- Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> a century and a half and counting. (There's a whole
Have you ever READ his Great War stuff? It's NOT conducive to the above stated
sentiment.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Which never seems to happen on any other than an
American-bashing discussion. . .
> > Actually, their major malfunction lately was
Umm... they didn't.
They let him run for governor, and in a two-party
race, elected a known criminal over him.
> Excuse me, but a lot of innocent blood shed in that
Tarring and Feathering is not lethal.
> How many homes of loyalist were burnt AFTER the war
Well, consider that the typical British penalty for treason was to confiscate
the family's property AND hang the principal involved. Therefore simply
burning or stealing the property of "Loyalists" (who, since the Declaration of
July 4, 1776, were actually guilty of treason against a nation of which they
were residents) is an few orders of magnitude more merciful than the penalty
they were attempting to inflict on the neighbors who did the burning.
This happens in wartime. It might have been better to hold a proper trial and
convict those persons of treason, but then we'd have to hang them and you'd be
whining much louder.
> I have a great idea. Let's bleed the U.S. as France
How? We couldn't do it to ourselves. The Germans couldn't do it and we gave
them two shots. The Japs
couldn't do it. The Chinese/NKPA couldn't do it. The
Vietnamese exceeded the US populace's threshold of pain and the Army ended up
improving by several orders of magnitude.
We learn from failure. The French did not.
> At 06:19 30/05/02 -0700, you wrote:
Running true to form John, make a whole string of biased, incorrect claims,
discount any rebuttal, and when people take you to task you cry......" OH NO
LOOK AT THE EVIL FOREIGNER, HIS BASHING AMERICANS AGAIN!" Stop wrapping your
nation's flag around yourself John, your doing it a disservice and getting it
dirty.
If you want to make rubbish statements, then do so standing on your own two
feet, don't run and hide behind something.
Cheers
Behave or we send in the San Salvadoreans! (No disrespect for any
S.S.'s
out there, just the size of the supposed countries threatening the US
seems to have to be forgotten - the army needs to outnumber the NYPD at
least.) Now, the RCMP is another matter entirely. They probably could convince
the local law enforcement types that "...the extradition papers are coming..."
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:44 -0500 (CDT) DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
> At 06:19 30/05/02 -0700, John wrote:
Derek said:
> Running true to form John, make a whole string of biased, incorrect
Frankly, Derek, you're just as far out of line as John is. And if
you're going to accuse him of inaccuracy, it hardly helps your case
when you misquote him. Besides, Imre isn't an evil foreigner--he's an
evil American <very, very big grin!!!>
> > > Cloaking lurker mode off...
Thanks Derek. You said that much better than I could have.
By the way, despite what many of you may think because of my name, I am a
third generation American. I was born and am a U.S. citizen. I realize that my
country is not always right, that there are other ideals of life that are
valid to pursue, and I am not affraid to voice my opinions. I guess this means
I'm not "THE EVIL FOREIGNER", but rather "THE EVIL TURNCOAT" in John
Atkinson's book.
> If you want to make rubbish statements, then do so standing on your
How many times have people told John Atkinson this one way or another?
> At 10:43 30/05/02 -0400, you wrote:
Frankly, that's a point we'll differ on, I never be that bad.
> And if
My mistake, BUT that doesn't change that as sure as night follows day that we
are rapidlly approaching the "how dare you bash the Americans" phase of the
current whinge session. This is appearing with regularity on this list, both
whinging and "Amercian bashing". Once we could rather proud of the fact the
there was a "low static" on this list, but I'd doubt that now.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 02:59 31/05/02 -0700, Eric wrote:
Twice.
> > Unfortunately (for American ego's that's not entirely correct) As I
<snip>
Germany a continental European power was never going to win a drawn out war
against a coalition that included Great Britain, a global empire. When the
American troops arrived, the war in Europe was shifting from trench warfare to
a mobile phase, which ended in the breaking of the Hindenberg line.
> Remove Adolf Hitler from his disastrous meddling in military and
That
> stipulates three different crucial changes:
Remove Hitler and friends and there may not have even being a war:) Although
there probably would still have seen a war between the US and Japan.
Cheers
> At 02:59 31/05/02 -0700, Eric wrote:
Twice.
Something I missed the first time around, both times the US got involved in
the wars, it did not have the most powerful military on the planet, that
came later after the end of WW2.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]