The French military actually did something

[Zebo]

Vive la France!

 

[chucky2]

I'd say the Channel helped to a good degree, but it was basically German political and military incompetence that saved the U.K. Despite the delusions of the British, they'd have been killed en masse by the Germans had the Germans not F'd around with Stalin, and instead taken care of the U.K. scorched earth style (which it would have been). Then the Germans could have done Stalin, and they'd have succeeded too...

 

[ichy]

The French and the Americans lost to the North Vietnamese, but neither was fighting to defend their countries against foreign invaders in foreign wars. The French needed help from the British to defend France from Germany in World War I. The French got completely smashed by the Germans during WW II, again with superior leaderships, tactics and training, both sides had comparable weapons. In the end, the French surrendered their country in just a few weeks without inflicting any serious damage to the German arm forces.

The US Army got their asses kicked the first time they fought the Germans in WW2 as well. Thankfully we were fighting a couple of German divisions in North Africa, not defending our country from an invasion by the entire German army.

 

[ichy]

The British got routed in French soil but defended their country by themselves.

Large bodies of water surrounding you generally make it a lot easier to defend your country...

 

[BladeVenom]

Foreign Legion is open to french citizens and 24% of the Legion are French citizens

source: wikipedia

If you would have read down further, "French citizens can enlist under a declared, fictitious, foreign citizenship (generally, a francophone one, often that of Belgium or Switzerland)." So they can enlist, if they lie about their citizenship.

 

[Darwin333]

How do you know the plane didnt land because the french planes were in the area? Oh you dont. And the french went in first so they did take the lead. But you know the republicans will do well if this thing turns into a shit sandwich. I'm sure if you prey for power enough your god will hear you and make it into shit.

I am curious to what your opinion on the issue would be if a Republican was in the White House and everything played out exactly the same. Dollars to doughnuts that you would most definitely not be defending them.

 

[Darwin333]

The US Army got their asses kicked the first time they fought the Germans in WW2 as well. Thankfully we were fighting a couple of German divisions in North Africa, not defending our country from an invasion by the entire German army.

Not only was the US army (and just about any civilian that could procure and use a gun) defending their homeland but they had to pack up all the shit they possibly could, travel across an ocean, disembark without getting killed and THEN fight the enemy. Tad bit of a difference.

OTOH, once upon a time the French did bail our asses out too and they were also a bit late.

 

[JSt0rm]

I am curious to what your opinion on the issue would be if a Republican was in the White House and everything played out exactly the same. Dollars to doughnuts that you would most definitely not be defending them.

I didnt really have a negative opinion on the first golf war going into it because it was a UN sanctioned event and that was a republican president. So I dont see how this would be any different.

But what we do know is the republicans who were SOOOOO gung ho a decade ago to go to war with NO support are now somehow against this action that has the full support of the free people of the world. So I could flip your question around but I wont because i already know the answer.

 

[Pocatello]

Large bodies of water surrounding you generally make it a lot easier to defend your country...

It wasn't that easy. The British put a lot of resources into building the Grand Fleet to defend their home island. That wasn't done over night, it took a long time for the British to have the most powerful navy in Europe. The British army was quite small compare to both the French army and the German army, but the British knew that they still have a better navy than the Germans. The French built static defensive lines in hoping it would be WWI all over again. Weapon wise, the Germans didn't have anything better than the French, just better training, better tactics, and better field commanders. The French put too much resources into things that didn't matter, and they lost.

 

[Darwin333]

I didnt really have a negative opinion on the first golf war going into it because it was a UN sanctioned event and that was a republican president. So I dont see how this would be any different.

But what we do know is the republicans who were SOOOOO gung ho a decade ago to go to war with NO support are now somehow against this action that has the full support of the free people of the world. So I could flip your question around but I wont because i already know the answer.

So your agreement with a war is conditional upon other countries agreement with said war? I dunno, when pondering if the United States should enter into a war most other countries (unless we are talking about defending an ally) views don't register very high on my give-a-fuck-a-meter. Thats just me though.

Just so that I understand your position clearly, if the group of countries that currently "approves" of the war in Libya had approved of the 2nd Gulf War (everything else remaining the same) you would have been completely behind it?

I do find the entire discussion amusingly ironic yet very disturbing at the same time. The left defending war and the right bashing it and then both sides turn on a dime and do the opposite when they discuss one of the other wars we are currently engaged in.

 

[werepossum]

It wasn't that easy. The British put a lot of resources into building the Grand Fleet to defend their home island. That wasn't done over night, it took a long time for the British to have the most powerful navy in Europe. The British army was quite small compare to both the French army and the German army, but the British knew that they still have a better navy than the Germans. The French built static defensive lines in hoping it would be WWI all over again. Weapon wise, the Germans didn't have anything better than the French, just better training, better tactics, and better field commanders. The French put too much resources into things that didn't matter, and they lost.

Well analyzed.

 

[JSt0rm]

So your agreement with a war is conditional upon other countries agreement with said war?

No. The use of force is a incredibly complex issue and I would never pretend that my support or lack of support hinges off of one issue like that. Black and white thinking is idiotic, but we see that a lot with republicans.

I dunno, when pondering if the United States should enter into a war most other countries (unless we are talking about defending an ally) views don't register very high on my give-a-fuck-a-meter. Thats just me though.

Yeah we get it. Gung ho macho republicans go it alone, feel it in their guts and talk to god.

Just so that I understand your position clearly, if the group of countries that currently "approves" of the war in Libya had approved of the 2nd Gulf War (everything else remaining the same) you would have been completely behind it?

Again your mind is poisoned with all or nothing black and white thinking. Be smarter then that please.

I do find the entire discussion amusingly ironic yet very disturbing at the same time. The left defending war and the right bashing it and then both sides turn on a dime and do the opposite when they discuss one of the other wars we are currently engaged in.

I find it very disturbing that the right doesn't see the differences between these conflicts.

 

[Fern]

I didnt really have a negative opinion on the first golf war going into it because it was a UN sanctioned event and that was a republican president. So I dont see how this would be any different.

But what we do know is the republicans who were SOOOOO gung ho a decade ago to go to war with NO support are now somehow against this action that has the full support of the free people of the world. So I could flip your question around but I wont because i already know the answer.

Please stop with the 'GWB had no international support' for Iraq stuff. That's been debunked numerous times now.

IMO, the big difference between the 1st and 2nd Gulf War was that in #1 we weren't going to unseat Saddam. In the 2nd we did and that has caused us to hang around over there.

People need to be careful with this Libya thing. Obama and others of his team have already said Qaddafy has to go. Now current news reports say that Qaddafy's officials are trying to negotiate a ceasefire with the 'rebels', but they are refusing any talks with Qaddafy and also say he has to go.

Bottom line, if Qaddafy goes what does that mean vis-a-vis us having an Iraqi/Afgan type continuing presence there?

I'd like to believe this will be a quick 'in-n-out' thing but I'm having doubts. I'm afraid we're gonna end up with a continuing presence and they're just gonna try and spin it as different by saying it's a 'UN thing'. BS - continuing presence is continuing presence and all that it means/costs.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Please stop with the 'GWB had no international support' for Iraq stuff. That's been debunked numerous times now.

IMO, the big difference between the 1st and 2nd Gulf War was that in #1 we weren't going to unseat Saddam. In the 2nd we did and that has caused us to hang around over there.

People need to be careful with this Libya thing. Obama and others of his team have already said Qaddafy has to go. Now current news reports say that Qaddafy's officials are trying to negotiate a ceasefire with the 'rebels', but they are refusing any talks with Qaddafy and also say he has to go.

Bottom line, if Qaddafy goes what does that mean vis-a-vis us having an Iraqi/Afgan type continuing presence there?

I'd like to believe this will be a quick 'in-n-out' thing but I'm having doubts. I'm afraid we're gonna end up with a continuing presence and they're just gonna try and spin it as different by saying it's a 'UN thing'. BS - continuing presence is continuing presence and all that it means/costs.

Fern

The administration (Clinton) said later that Qaddafy didn't necessarily have to go, he just had to be nice to his people. So whatever happens they can say they supported it.

I too have doubts, but as long as he continues fully supporting the pilots and NOT committing ground troops* I'm willing to support Obama and his adventure.

*Ground troops obviously not meaning Marine or SpecOps teams rescuing downed aviators, small raiding or rescue missions, ANGLICO teams, and such.

 

[JSt0rm]

Please stop with the 'GWB had no international support' for Iraq stuff. That's been debunked numerous times now.

No. "You're either with us or you're against us" does not build a coalition. If you notice everyone left us there alone to fester in our mistakes.

 

[Pocatello]

I do wish the French and our NATO allies the best in this little adventure. They have done a good job at stopping a massacre at Benghazi. It just feels like one of murky situation where there is no happy ending at the end for the Libyan people.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The administration (Clinton) said later that Qaddafy didn't necessarily have to go, he just had to be nice to his people. So whatever happens they can say they supported it.

I too have doubts, but as long as he continues fully supporting the pilots and NOT committing ground troops* I'm willing to support Obama and his adventure.

*Ground troops obviously not meaning Marine or SpecOps teams rescuing downed aviators, small raiding or rescue missions, ANGLICO teams, and such.

Such were the same statements/committments made by Ike and JFK initially.

But when someone gets into trouble; someone has to go get them out.

Such as when the F15 went down. It was a necessity to get the pilots - what if the rescue force had gotten trapped?

 

[EagleKeeper]

No. "You're either with us or you're against us" does not build a coalition. If you notice everyone left us there alone to fester in our mistakes.

You had the invasion (supported) and the recontruction/clusterfuck (bailed)

Two seperate issues and problems.

 

[Exterous]

Maginot would have been great if it worked out like WW1 did.
I would not call this a surrender.

Yes - ignoring new technologies and fighting the last war is always an excellent idea. That's why WW1 was so bad - they were fighting the last war without making allowances for new/better technologies. Who would have thought frontal assaults on machine gun emplacements over open ground would be so bad?

They also completely ignored their border with Belgium. It's not like the Germans would come through there. I mean they had never done that before right?

And what would you call the fall of France and creation of the puppet Vichy regime?

I'd say the Channel helped to a good degree, but it was basically German political and military incompetence that saved the U.K. Despite the delusions of the British, they'd have been killed en masse by the Germans had the Germans not F'd around with Stalin, and instead taken care of the U.K. scorched earth style (which it would have been). Then the Germans could have done Stalin, and they'd have succeeded too...

I don't know about that. Germany banked defeating Britain on starving her to death - not invading. The Kriegsmarine would have been hard pressed to keep the Royal Navy from intercepting supply convoys to any troops that did make it ashore. Even if the Luftwaffe had defeated the Brits in the Battle of Britain I still think they would not have been able to prevent the RN from sinking enough supply convoys to stifle land action on the island

Weapon wise, the Germans didn't have anything better than the French, just better training, better tactics, and better field commanders. The French put too much resources into things that didn't matter, and they lost.

The Bf109 was better than the French MS405 and I don't think the French had an answer to the JU-87. Then there was the German 88mm flak guns which were superior to any French AA or AT weapons. I seem to remember the German rifle being better as well

and I am not sure you should use 'just' when referring to better training, tactics and commanders

 

[Darwin333]

No. The use of force is a incredibly complex issue and I would never pretend that my support or lack of support hinges off of one issue like that. Black and white thinking is idiotic, but we see that a lot with republicans.

I was simply responding to your post which was almost exclusively about support from the UN and other nations or lack of. Are you accusing me of being a Republican? I despise those assholes too but I must be one because I don't blindly root for the other side?

Yeah we get it. Gung ho macho republicans go it alone, feel it in their guts and talk to god.

Ok?

Again your mind is poisoned with all or nothing black and white thinking. Be smarter then that please.

Again, I am simply responding to what you said. I would be more than happy to be smarter than that but you have to give me more to work with.

I find it very disturbing that the right doesn't see the differences between these conflicts.

There are differences between the two wars but at the end of the day they are still two wars with nations that did not attack us for reasons other than the national security of the United States.