Support Our Troops

Nobody like war or fighting in it!

But that is not the point here. We're prooving that it wastn't due to the US that we won World War 1.

 

While it is amusing making fun of the French, I would have to agree, both for WWI and WWI.

The French tend to get a bad rep, but really they didn't fight much worse than anyone else at the starts of WWII. Name one nation who didn't get a licking by the Wehrmacht in their first encounter. The French were just unfortunate in that they didn't have any space where they could retreat to lick their wounds following the first round. French forces aquitted themselves very well in Bir Hacheim for example, and also during the liberation of Europe, which is often forgotten. Not to mention the Normandy Nieman division flying on the eastern front.

 

It is strange how these threads take such twists and turns. We start off in 2003 to support our troops and end up in WWI and who won the war on the western front.

How ever I do agree with you the US entry probably made only a few months difference in the ending of the war, No more than Russia quitting the war in 1917 to pursue other interests.

 

Frankly I am still laughing at the claim that allowing the Iraqis to attack the rear echelons of the US advance as and where they like is not bad planning, I think if I came up with a claim that stupid and had to have the stupidity pointed out to me I would have to go find a hole to bury my head in. As for the WW1 thing, frankly we must accept that the US did make a contribution, but realistically i

 

Many of us disagree over the connections between the war on terror and Iraq. But since those connections have neither been conclusively dis-proven, attacking Iraq can be labelled as self-defense for the US. (...) People seem to conveniently forget about the unanimous vote approving the disarmament of Saddam.
If UN resolutions hold NO consequence at all, what's the point?
</font>[/QUOTE]First, I see two basic misconceptions here, grossly turning very basic principles of law upside down:

1.) Actori incumbit probatio (the burden of prove is up to the claimant)

No nation needs to dis-prove allegations from other countries that they have connections to international terrorsm to avoid military violence used against them.

2.)in dubio pro reo (in doubt for the defendant)

This prove has to be given by accusing party to the assembly of the United Nations. If no convincing prove can be provided, the assembly cannot convict the accused nation.


Secondly, the UN resolution had consequences (embargo, inspectors) and it would have had more serious consequences if the UN inspectors would have had the time to find that Iraq has not destroyed her WMD.

To us a picture, the defendant (Iraq) was shot by the prosecutor (USA), while still being in court (UN). The judges (the nations of the world) and observers (world public) in the courtroom are puzzeled: self-defence because the defendant had the irrevocable will to kill the prosecuor in court or rather vigilante justice?

Cheers,

 

???

So we had no right to go into Afghanistan, either? By this logic, no one would ever be able to address threats to their nation. If it is up to Iraq to prove that they are not supporting terrorism- what the heck do you expect from Saddam???

If no nation needs to dis-prove such accusations, how would said accusation be addressed? So we just wait around until the nation in question decides that they feel guilty and need to admit something?

Again, this assumes that the US is not in danger. If the US is in danger, we certainly do not need to wait for UN approval to protect ourselves!! That would be a good one... Wait for the UN to approve self-defense... sure, that's practical.
(Again, no claims about wether or not we actually are in danger from Iraq)

Or are we removing the sovereign rights of nations, and putting everything in the hands of the UN?

SO by that logic, wouldn't Britian need UN approval to act against the IRA? And wouldn't russia need UN approval to act against the Chechens?

In fact- why hasn't Saddam asked for UN approval to defend himself?

WRONG. France and Germany repeatedly refused to add any consequences to the UN resolutions. "Would have had"? Under what conditions would France and Germany have been satisfied? And what meaningful consequences would they have allowed? Both those nations made it very clear that use of force (the only thing likely to effect Saddam) would not be approved by them no matter what. Consequences? Sure...
And sanctions? Yeah, they've been working. Saddam takes "Oil-for-Food" money and spends it on his military. Yet another example of the UN "getting the job done".

Again, WRONG. ACCORDING TO BUSH (whom I do not necessarily agree with), The suspect (Iraq) is threatening the defendent (the US), who is proceeding to defend itself. We haven't even gone to court yet. If someone breaks into your home at night, are you going to demand that they meet you in court???

Although I do not whole-heartedly agree with Bush, at least I (think I) understand his position.

 

Well-said, Crazy.
But, it would seem to me that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was based on this same sort of pro-hydropower reasoning. As they believed that a naval war between them, the US and New zealand was unavoidable (reasonable, and true...) they figured they might as well strike in a crucible. We often use this example to show that pre-emptive strikes are a big no-no.
Germany believed that they would eventually have to fight the Soviet Union (again, reasonable...) and, so, decided to strike.
It has been the policy of the United States to kill.

[ 28. March 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Knight Templar ]

 

Knight, I try!

Agreed. But here's the difference I see...
(although, again, I am sort of playing devil's advocate here. I'm only trying to paraphrase the Bush administration position. Again, not going ot get into my opinions...)
The difference here is the threat. Japan was engaged in a war of conquest- China, Phillipines, etc. Japan was intent on taking territory. The Japanese did not per se see the US as a "threat"- they saw the US as a nation they would inevitably come into conflict with. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to start that conflict on their own terms (yes, pre-emptive), but that conflict was aimed at Japan's territorial conquest.
In the case of Bush's action against Iraq, the idea is that Iraq represents a threat to the US and US interests. Thus, this would be considered a pre-emptive strike- but a pre-emptive strike to avert an eventual attack. In Bush's eyes, pre-emptive self defense. And although my thoughts on this remain mine, I CAN see the case here. Unlike Japan, Bush is not waging a war of conquest (again, as per what the administration says. And a predictions about future US actions are onyl that, predictions. We know how reliable those can be, eh? ).

What do you mean by this one? Is there some US policy that sets this out, or is this a "theory" put forth by US policy makers? Where ya gettin this one, hoss? (not shooting this one down in any way. Really curious!?!)

 

Love this site.

Ive learned a lot from the people on here over the last few months.

Thought I was quite up on ww2 and issues. But after coming here for a while
have found I have a lot to learn.

And have even had my long held views and opinions changed by some of the
people on here.

The bomber war in particular.

We all have a favourite area on ww2 and tend to relegate other theatres and battles
as a side view.

I always ignored the Eastern front and Finland in particular to a certain degree, concentrated on Western Europe and the Far Eastern theatres and naval operations.

Perhaps because the Russian battles although I knew this is where the wars outcome was
decided, was just too much to take in at the expense of my own families stories etc where the war was concerned.

Never thought I would get into that particular area but am now facinated by the Eastern battles, just thought before that they were too huge and impersonal, impersonal being a bad word I know.

When I first came on the forum, I read Knights posts and didnt really want to get invlved...theres plenty of other forums and newsgroups for that, I came here for ww2 and relaxation.

Knight and myself had a bit of a disagreement of raising of issues on FFZ, Middle east in particular, as I was under the impression, arguments in this area could cause the forums a lot of hassle and problems and there were other places to discuss these matters, and indeed I do. Knight and myself although probably different at expressing our views are more likely to go similar ways on certain matters as to cause and effect of problems, but we disagreed on whether it shoud be brought to life here on these forums as I am aware of the emotions and thoughts involved.

Everyone on these forums comes across to me as mature thinking people. Stick to ww2 I thought.

And for most part I do.

Seems I proved myself right on the disrupption it can cause, and at end of day Otto has the final say.

But I cant let this one go, 2 threads closed recently, dont mind that, things can get out of hand... And a halt sometimes has to be called at times, there are after all other places to debate these things if wanted.

But those 2 threads closed finished with something that I take particular animosity to.

Both mentioned the IRA, A terrorist orginisation that some of us visiting these forums have personally engaged in the province and the mainland for some time some here have been engaged in fighting terrorism for a long time. Some such as Bish..sorry if Im incuding you here Bish...and myself in another lifetime..have fought terrorism for a long time over here. Weve seen it first hand on the streets, nothing brave, nothing heroic, just needs saying, since in the 2 threads that were closed contain references to the IRA one implying that its an old thing, only supported by Poor Irish Amercians over there...

For goodness sakes, if thats the case why was a convicted IRA terrorist allowed to marshal the St. Patricks day parade on 17 March 2002 in New York City, of all places, New York, the very place terrorism bit America, How do you think that makes some of us feel over here, to see that sort of thing?

Dont you think we have an opinion, dont you think we abhore this example?

On these boards, we can see that while discussing ww2 we can get on very well, appreciating each nations efforts and experiences.

On FFZ dont think though that some of us will idly accept some of the rubbish spouted.

Bish, on current news, and with the obvious need for replacements and R and R, I wish you well as due to work travel I wont be visiting the forum for a whiile..

Good luck if you go and take care Pongo.

 

Well said. As you may have guessed I am not a serviceman but several members of my family have been in the recent past and I have several friends who are serving (or have done recently). It is galling to see such a double standard being operated on the issue of anti terrorism. Having talked to men who walked the streets of N Ireland since the 1960's in the service of our nation and having heared just a few stories (and being well aware of the fact that I dont know the half of it) I have nothing but the upmost respect for those men who have and continue to do that duty today. I do not believe it is fair to close topics on the basis that the issue of the US/Ireland connection was brought up (if indeed that is why they were closed) as it is of great importance to many people and they deserve a say, just as much as individuals who preach other points of view (note the herculean effort not to name names or give examples) which are allowed just because they are pro-US. On the other hand I may have just grabbed the wrong end of a prickley stick here.

On a similar note, it was nice talking to you the other day Bish, keep well and look after yourself should you be sent to 'sunnier climbs'. Our thoughts will be with you and I for one will keep an eye out for your mob on the news. All the best as always,
Stefan

 

Wait a minute.

If I get this right, England has a right to get north Ireland and it is okay with everyone in this board. But, when Israel gets some land from Arab wars victories everyone starts to say that Israel is the aggressor.

Please, when something is not on your side you always have to blame someone. It goes into European history. You always blame someone for your own problems so the scapegoat is not but someone else.

For years British were hassled around because of their land owning problems. It happened here and everywhere else were a British flag once stood. The Irish were fighting for years for their land, so please if you don't like something get off the Northern Ireland and you problems will be gone.

 

VYACHESLAV – Have you got any idea what Nortern Ireland is about? Don’t try and fool anyone by saying yes, then posing such blatant ignorant junk which clearly demonstrates you don’t have a clue.

No.9

 

Lets not get on Northern Ireland. Its gonna be hard to get off it once we do

CvM

 

Why does IRA fight? What is their main reason for fighting and bombing England?

Irish Republican Army (IRA), name adopted by a number of armed groups who have been dedicated to ending British rule in Ireland and have claimed allegiance to an independent Irish republic. The term is most commonly applied to the contemporary Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA, also known as “Provos” or “Provisionals”) formed in 1972. Since that date the IRA has waged a terrorist campaign against Britain to force the British to withdraw their military forces from Northern Ireland and to establish a united Irish republic.

II Origins and Early Activities
print section

English control of Ireland was formally established in 1541 when English king Henry VIII was given the title “King of Ireland” by the Irish Parliament
. From then until the 19th century, revolutionary Irish groups staged periodic uprisings against English rule.

One of these groups in the 1860s was the first Irish Republican Army. It was the armed wing of the Fenian movement in Ireland, Britain, and North America. The Fenians wished to establish an independent Irish republic, and in 1867 they staged insurrections in Ireland and England. These were unsuccessful, however, and the Fenian movement ceased to exist around 1885.

A The Irish Volunteers

The term IRA was later adopted by the Irish Volunteers who fought against British forces between 1919 and 1921, during the latter stages of the Irish Revolution. The Volunteers were established in response to the formation in 1913 of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a paramilitary organization centered in the province of Ulster, which comprises most of what is now Northern Ireland. The UVF wanted to prevent home rule, or self-government, for Ireland. They feared that Ulster’s largely Protestant population would be underrepresented in an independent Irish government, since most of southern Ireland was Roman Catholic. Conversely, the Irish Volunteers were dedicated to ensuring that home rule was established as a first step toward their primary goal: the creation of an independent Irish republic. By early 1914, Irish society and politics had been militarized by the two volunteer armies and there was the imminent possibility of a civil war over the issue of home rule.

 

Screw our troops!! I hope the Iraqi's kill a lot of them, then Bush will learn the lesson he so desperately needs! Baghdad will be another Stalingrad, too bad for the fascists both in 1943 and 2003.

heehee

 

Well done – you just further illustrated my statement.

YOU KNOW SFA ABOUT IRELAND.

You’ve never studied it, never researched it, let alone been there, in fact all you know is what you can find on the internet - and in that you fail miserably because there is plenty of terrorist propaganda you can post.

Why don’t you tell us in your own words what you know?

One thing you obviously don’t know, who are the people of Northern Ireland? Well they’re IRISH, not English, and unless your are a real American Indian, they have been IRISH longer than your family has been in America! And that's a fact.

No.9

 

WHAT! Seriously, you want Bush to learn a lesson so that...... lets say 50,000 of your own people (who fight for America) will die, There wives become widdows, childs become orphons, Parents lose their children, so Bush can learn a lesson, pathetic. As for V-Slav, come on, dont even think I can answer your statements anymore, just to ignorant. Lets not go into Ireland, anything like that, just get back to the regular Free Fire Zone.

 

I concur wholeheartedly !

V, get rid of the web references please ! Do somemore studying on your own without the help of high tech. you'll be better off.....

E

 

WHAT KNIGHT!!!!!!!!
OK-IM A CHRISTIAN, SO I'M NOT GOING TO BLOW MY TOP HERE, BUT HOW DARE HE WISH FOR THAT, I DON'T CARE IF WE KNOW HIM AS AN OUTSPOKEN MEMBER OF THIS FORUM-HE CROSSED THE LINE ON THIS ONE.
OTTO'S ACTION WAS MOST CALLED FOR, AND IN MY OPINION THE ONLY OPTION TO SILENCE SUCH RHETORIC...