Iraq

[ThaSaltCracka]

simple title, eh?



I have a small story. My brother who graduated from U of P in 2003 did ROTC. Well, he has been in the National Guard since 2002 in a small support unit stationed in Oregon. His units main role is provide combat units, like artilery units, with the proper supplies they need to function. His unit was one of the few that hasn't gone to Iraq, yet. However for the past 4 months, he has been at Ft. Knox in Kentucky for his OBC in armor. He has been hoping to switch to a new armored cav unit after he graduates, and has apparently found one. This new unit would ship out to Afghanistan some time in the next few months. But his old unit wants him to come back, because they are gonna be shipped out to Iraq. Apparently his old unit is going to be patrolling the streets of Iraq in Humvees. You can probably see where I want him to go.

My brother has been telling me for the past year that the reason why so many troops were getting killed in the cities was because we had support role troops performing roles which should be carried out by either MP's or combat soldiers. Clearly the planning of the war and the after war is screwed up, and this also shows we are stretched thin in regards combat troops.

I am sure this has been said on here before, but I just wanted to say it again because it may now effect me and my family.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the planning of the war and the after war is screwed up, and this also shows we are stretched thin in regards combat troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it so hard to believe that the most successful invasion in history was poorly planned, or atleast very very ironic. The post invasion planning is a different story.

I do wish you brother the best of luck. It sounds like he is thinking about going back to his old unit, is this true?

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the planning of the war and the after war is screwed up, and this also shows we are stretched thin in regards combat troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it so hard to believe that the most successful invasion in history was poorly planned, or atleast very very ironic. The post invasion planning is a different story.

I do wish you brother the best of luck. It sounds like he is thinking about going back to his old unit, is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real? The most successful invasion in history? LOL Yea, 10 years of sanctions, NO airforce, out of date weaponry, and half-hearted soldiers. Oh, don't forget NO chemical or biological weapons.

Yea, it was a tough battle alright. Certainly the most impressive invasion in history. LOL

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it so hard to believe that the most successful invasion in history was poorly planned, or atleast very very ironic.

[/ QUOTE ] I think most Civ 3 players could have planned a war strategy for the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't that hard. Use smart bombs and our air dominance to attack any ground units, then let the armor and cav units roll in. The admin gets far to much credit for crushing a dalapadated army and country. Your right about the "after war" planning.

[ QUOTE ]
I do wish you brother the best of luck. It sounds like he is thinking about going back to his old unit, is this true?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know if he is thinking about going back(I hope not), but I think they want him back.

[Stu Pidasso]

When my brother was there, his chief complaint was the lack of body armour. He was there a year and the best he got was a vietnam era flak vest.

[ QUOTE ]
My brother has been telling me for the past year that the reason why so many troops were getting killed in the cities was because we had support role troops performing roles which should be carried out by either MP's or combat soldiers. Clearly the planning of the war and the after war is screwed up, and this also shows we are stretched thin in regards combat troops.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of the troops have gotten killed not so much becuase they were doing combat jobs outside their normal duties, but becuase the equipment we had/have over there is designed for a linear battle field. The current battlefield in Iraq is a 360 degree battlefield with virtually no rear areas. The unarmoured humvee for example was never designed to be used on the front lines and isn't fairing well against AK-47 bullets and RPGs. The army is rushing over Armoured Humvees which will stop AK-47 bullets, anti-personnel RPGs and often roadside bombs. If your brother goes to Iraq, hopefully he get better equipment than what my brother got.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you for real? The most successful invasion in history? LOL Yea, 10 years of sanctions, NO airforce, out of date weaponry, and half-hearted soldiers. Oh, don't forget NO chemical or biological weapons. Yea, it was a tough battle alright. Certainly the most impressive invasion in history. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]


Tracker, do you think there might be any fundamental difference in meaning here between the words "successful" and "impressive"?

Also, which word is inherently more subjectively dependent?

[ThaSaltCracka]

oh, I forgot about the equipment too, yeah he told me that's a problem too. I spoke with my brother today and he told me he is probably going to Afghanistan, so that's good, atleast for him. But I think there is still a discussion here in regards to support troops doing MP work in Iraq.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you for real? The most successful invasion in history? LOL Yea, 10 years of sanctions, NO airforce, out of date weaponry, and half-hearted soldiers. Oh, don't forget NO chemical or biological weapons. Yea, it was a tough battle alright. Certainly the most impressive invasion in history. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]


Tracker, do you think there might be any fundamental difference in meaning here between the words "successful" and "impressive"?

Also, which word is inherently more subjectively dependent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa Mmm, you're talking over my head now.

The invasion was successful, not impressive.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most Civ 3 players could have planned a war strategy for the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't fool yourself into thinking this.

You also are not qualified to be the GM of a Major League Baseball team because you won your rotisserie league championship.

You aren't more capable of planning John Kerry's Presidential campaign than his current staff simply because you read and watch a lot of political discussion.

And, you couldn't do a better job of programming a major TV network simply because you can identify the "garbage" which is on the air now.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The invasion was successful, not impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the leadership in every military oraganization through out the world would beg to differ with you.

Stu

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think most Civ 3 players could have planned a war strategy for the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't fool yourself into thinking this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd agree that most elite Civ 3 players could have planned a war strategy for the invasion of Iraq. Of course, our invasion worked just fine - it took no time at all, had minimal casualties (ours, at least) and we achieved all our objectives expeditiously. The problem, as noted above, was the post-invasion strategy. Beating the crap out of an essentially defenseless nation isn't that big a deal - occupying a hostile nation is.

Basically, it's important to differentiate between the invasion, which frankly anyone with any sense of tactics and strategy could have successfully planned given our unsurmountable superiority in every area, and the occupation.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it's important to differentiate between the invasion, which frankly anyone with any sense of tactics and strategy could have successfully planned given our unsurmountable superiority in every area, and the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its important to remember that the occupation could be or could become a helluva lot worse. I suspect its still gotta get worse before it gets better.

Stu

[Cyrus]

"Clearly the planning of the war [against Iraq] and the after[math of that] war is screwed up, and this also shows we are stretched thin in ... combat troops.

I am sure this has been said here before, but I just wanted to say it again because it may now effect me and my family."

I sincerely hope the war's reality does not hit home any closer for you.

[MMMMMM]

Well it certainly read like you were being sarcastic in response to Wacki's statement that the invasion was the most successful in history.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd agree that most elite Civ 3 players could have planned a war strategy for the invasion of Iraq.
.
...the invasion, which frankly anyone with any sense of tactics and strategy could have successfully planned given our unsurmountable superiority in every area...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do some of you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that being very good at playing a computer/video game makes you capable of planning a successful war strategy against a military dictator who has held power for more than a quarter century?

You guys are playing a game. Saddam Hussein has been "playing" the real thing for his whole adult life and winning until just recently.

[Cyrus]

"I find it so hard to believe that the most successful invasion in history was poorly planned, or at least very very ironic. The post invasion planning is a different story."

Pay attention now! What Wacki is saying is typical of hierarchical, compartmentalized thinking -- gone awry.

I have witnessed, experienced and suffered from this kind of thinking, which is very typical of thinking inside corporations. A problem that is not your department's is not a problem! (I have seen corporate cultures whereby inflicting problems on other departments that made your dept look better, would get you kudos from the man!)

Yes, Virginia, the post-invasion planning is part and parcel of the invasion planning. When Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were repeatedly and warned (from the brass!) about the need to plan carefully and deeply about post-invasion Iraq, those assholes dismissed all such talk as "defeatist" and "looking into crystal balls"!

Imagine if the Normandy Invasion in World War II had idiots like Rummy & Co running the show!..

[nicky g]

I don't think anyone literally believes a good computer game player would have been qualified to coordinate te invasion. I think their point is that the invasion wasn't successful because of genius planning, but because the Iraqi army was in such a parlous state that it offered next to no threat, and in the event very little resistance, to what is by far and away the most advanced and powerful army the world has even seen.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Do some of you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that being very good at playing a computer/video game makes you capable of planning a successful war strategy against a military dictator who has held power for more than a quarter century?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. You give someone absolute power over the greatest war machine ever made, a war machine which is superior in every possible regard to it's opposition. Their opponent is unable to restrict your activities in any way and will likely run from any encounter. My wife could have been the head of the Joint Chiefs and led a successful invasion. Anything would have worked.
"How about we land two divisions of marines here and then pour in a few more divisions to follow them up and occupy the country." Works.
"How about we bomb the crap out of every identifiable military target, then send in a division of little-used reserves from Montana." Works.

Basically, I can't envision a scenario which uses even half of the assets we actually used which doesn't result in us successfully invading Iraq in remarkably short order - to say nothing of scenarios which use a whole lot more than we actually did. (And we certainly had a lot more to use had we so desired.)

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are playing a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never played Civ 3 in my life, although I've played a host of other strategic and tactical war games. However, in today's day and age, there isn't a massive gap between the simulators and reality. There are "gamers" out there which could prepare you quite well for a lot of things. When I was going through flight school, we were partially trained by Microsoft's Flight Simulator, and we encouraged to use that as often as we could to master things like instrument flight.

I only used your "Civ 4 players" example to show that anyone with even the slightest clue about strategy and tactics would have been able to lead our steamroller through Iraq. It's like saying that a 5-year old could coach an NFL team to victory over a high school team.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I sincerely hope the war's reality does not hit home any closer for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks Cyrus, but I think my brother is going to be headed to Afghanistan, so thats not to bad, plus he will be in a tank.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Do some of you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that being very good at playing a computer/video game makes you capable of planning a successful war strategy against a military dictator who has held power for more than a quarter century?

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah I do actually. Many great Madden players could probably tell you what plays his local team should call in that tight 3 and goal situation in the 4th quarter, and be right most of the time. Video and computer games have become incredibly realistic in the past 5 years. Couple that with the fact that Iraq essentially had no military and the invasion is a cake walk. How can you not see this?

[vulturesrow]

The claim that someone who is an accomplished video game player could have planned the invasion in Iraq is one of the most ludicrous I have seen yet on this forum. There is no simulation out there that could encompass the the complete dynamics of the invasion of a country.

Clearly the US had a huge technological and capability advantage. I dont dispute that. However I challenge anyone to have predicted that the Iraqis would have folded so completely and quickly which largely why the whole thing ended so quickly. The ease at which we won has deluded people. It could have easily gone much worse if we had faced stiffer resistance. I dont doubt the outcome would be much different however.

Yes simulations can be useful in training in limited situations. It isnt the same things as planning and conducting a major invasion.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The claim that someone who is an accomplished video game player could have planned the invasion in Iraq is one of the most ludicrous I have seen yet on this forum. There is no simulation out there that could encompass the the complete dynamics of the invasion of a country.

[/ QUOTE ] Nicky G does a good job of explaining or rather guessing what I meant, and he was right BTW. Can't I use some Hyperbole?


I think most if not all people thought we were going to steamroll the Iraqi "army". You are right, we didn't know FOR SURE that the Iraqi army would cave so easily, but it wasn't that surprising. These people could either fight(and most likely die) for someone they didn't want to fight for, or give up, tough choice.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Nicky G does a good job of explaining or rather guessing what I meant, and he was right BTW. Can't I use some Hyperbole?

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much knew what you meant. Hyperbole is both allowable and encouraged!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif That being said, I still disagree. Like I said our advantage was great. But you cannot underestimate the value of great planning. The way the military was able to constantly adapt was impressive. Now having been involved, I may have a greater appreciation for some of the planning and new tactics that were used.
Also many people in here tried to defend your point on a literal basis, I was speaking more to them than you.

[ QUOTE ]
I think most if not all people thought we were going to steamroll the Iraqi "army". You are right, we didn't know FOR SURE that the Iraqi army would cave so easily, but it wasn't that surprising. These people could either fight(and most likely die) for someone they didn't want to fight for, or give up, tough choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the capitulation of the regular army wasnt completely out of the blue. However the Repbulican Guard was the elite and well treated by the regime. There was a great expectation that their defense of Baghdad would be tough to crack.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
However the Repbulican Guard was the elite and well treated by the regime. There was a great expectation that their defense of Baghdad would be tough to crack.

[/ QUOTE ] Ah, yes you are right about the RG. Didn't one or two of their commanders surrender before any fighting could start?

The most frustrating thing for me though about Iraq in regards to the admins planning is that they give themselves a huge pat on the back for essentially crushing a greatly outmatched country and then turn around and totally [censored] up the whole postwar planning. To use a term my brother uses, the post war Iraq situation is a clusterfuck.

[elwoodblues]

Similarly, do people actually believe that Bush planned the war? He might have made the final yes/no vote, but I would doubt that he had much input into the specifics at all.

[Dynasty]

It's a bit amusing to hear everybody say how easy the win over Iraq was. During the war, there were constant reports that our forces were "bogged down" and unable to advance.

Don't you guys remember that some reports were actually suggesting we weren't equipped to win? It reminds me of the reports today which says things are "getting worse everyday".

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
However I challenge anyone to have predicted that the Iraqis would have folded so completely and quickly which largely why the whole thing ended so quickly. The ease at which we won has deluded people. It could have easily gone much worse if we had faced stiffer resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

We won? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
During the war, there were constant reports that our forces were "bogged down" and unable to advance.


[/ QUOTE ] I thought they were referring to our tanks and APC's that had advanced to far and were know waiting for the slowed support vehicles to catch up.

Are you tryin to argue that the invasion of Iraq wasn't incredibly easy?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you guys remember that some reports were actually suggesting we weren't equipped to win?

[/ QUOTE ] No

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you guys remember that some reports were actually suggesting we weren't equipped to win?

[/ QUOTE ] No

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. I remember hearing reports like that all over the news. "We don't have enough troops! The most advanced striker division is in the Gulf. It will be 2 weeks before they can join the battle." There were people screaming that , and other things, right and left.

As of right now, I haven't seen any proof to convince me the invasion was poorly planned. I read an article, I think it was in the NYT's, that talked about how the Iraq land war was the first land war fought like a naval battle.

In WWII the japanese were all over the place. They were entrenched in island after island. Our navy simply skipped the islands that weren't important and hit the islands that were. There were accounts even years after the war there were still japanese on islands that thought the war was still going on.

The Iraq invasion used similar tactics. There were numerous generals that said we couldn't ignore the villages and cities because they could hit our supply lines. If we used the classical front technique(waiting till an area was "secure" before moving on), it would of taken months to invade Iraq. The article went into much more depth, but that was the general message. I still think, military wise, the invasion was well planned. Obviously there are major flaws in the post invasion plan. But that is another debate.

[nicky g]

"The way the military was able to constantly adapt was impressive. "

Adapt to what? THe whole thing lasted about ten minutes.

"I agree that the capitulation of the regular army wasnt completely out of the blue. However the Repbulican Guard was the elite and well treated by the regime. There was a great expectation that their defense of Baghdad would be tough to crack. "

Yeah but it wasn;t, and they more or less ran away. I don;t know to what extent that was known by the top brass at the time (although it's tempting to think one of the reasons they went for Iraq was that it an easy victory would make them look good). But in hindsight seems fairly clear that the Iraqi army was a total pushover.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
most successful invasion in history

[/ QUOTE ]

To get the Iraq invasion wrong would have taken military incompetence of the highest order.

The Iraq military didnt have one weapon sytem that could threaten our own.

There troops and officers were totaly demoralised. Any attempt by the Iraq forces to stand and fight in the field in any massed formations would have resulted in there total annihilation.

From a militaristic point of view you cannot have any more advantages than those enjoyed by the coalition forces. It dosnt get any better.

As for the most succsefull invasion in history. The German invasion of France is a much better candidate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

To get the Iraq invasion wrong would have taken military incompetence of the highest order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, in order for it to fail, but not to go alot slower and have alot more casualties. If we had listened to the what the previous generals were saying it would of taken ALOT longer. In fact, if we had listened to them, and secured each city as we went, it would of been DISASTEROUS!! I stand by my statement.

[ QUOTE ]

The Iraq military didnt have one weapon sytem that could threaten our own.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement is completely false, Iraq could of caused us alot of harm, and I am amazed we got off as light as we did.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/881130/posts
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030403-rfel-164417.htm

Iraq had 1,000 illegal Kornets capable of defeating the Abrams. They also acquired numerous other advanced weapons systems during the food for oil program. France was the leader in this corruption followed by Russia and the Ukraine. French Connection (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm)

Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. .... A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.



This is just one reason why I am boycotting french Wine, there are plenty more. I honestly don't understand why so many people think there was no way the Republican Guard could of hurt us. "It was poorly planned because it went so well..." <-(sarcasm) Give the generals a break. Are those Kerry's words ringing in your head? Think about it first.


[ QUOTE ]
There troops and officers were totaly demoralised. Any attempt by the Iraq forces to stand and fight in the field in any massed formations would have resulted in there total annihilation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Iraqi's in the open desert in mass formations would result in total annihilation. That should be obvious. We are very lucky they didn't fortify themselves in the city. The CIA made alot of deals with generals before the war, don't underestimate that.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the most succsefull invasion in history. The German invasion of France is a much better candidate,

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously don't understand your thought process. The Iraq invasion was unique in that it was a Naval battle fought on land. Many generals said it wouldn't work, we had to do the hail mary traditional front. Look what that got us in WWII:

http://search.eb.com/normandy/week5/images/onormay229a4.gif

I don't think it's right to complain about poor planning when we had as few casualties as we had. I seriously just don't understand the logic. Yes, it was easier than Normandy, but still. Normandy was brute force attack. Simple and straight forward. Many generals pre-war wanted us to do a brute force attack with a slow, but steadily self-securing front. Tommy franks, against much criticism , refused to do this. I think he was brilliant. The war was uniquely fought, the logistics worked damn near flawlessly, it was lightning fast, and had few casualties. What more do you want? I'll never understand people that complain about success. Some people are never happy.


Again, the occupation and stabilization is a different story. I can easily understand why people complain about that. But that is a job that hasn't really been done before and they are learning as they go.

[The once and future king]

I have to gout now but will answere more fully later.

But first. Why on earth are you taliking about Normandy.

I said the GERMAN invasion of FRANCE..

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to gout now but will answere more fully later.

But first. Why on earth are you taliking about Normandy.

I said the GERMAN invasion of FRANCE..

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops... Sorry. :-)

Ok, I will agree with you on that one. The Germans kicked a$$. Then again, you can easily argue that the French in WWII were as pathetic as the Iraqis were in 2000. The Maginot line was a disaster waiting to happen. Good comparison actually. Both the French and the Iraqis were pathetic and provided no real resistance and surrendered the first chance they got.

To be fair to the Iraqis, the French had British help, the Iraqis only had French and Russian equipment.

Actually the French were far more pathetic during the initial invasion because Marshal Henri Pétain set up a puppet Nazi Vichy regime in Paris before the Germans even arrived.

Hehe... Let the flame wars begin. It was true though.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
raq had 1,000 illegal Kornets capable of defeating the Abrams. They also acquired numerous other advanced weapons systems during the food for oil program. France was the leader in this corruption followed by Russia and the Ukraine.



French Connection

Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. .... A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.





This is just one reason why I am boycotting french Wine, there are plenty more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really glad you brought this up. This should make it utterly apparent as to why France was so stauchnly aganist the war in Iraq. Most left leaning imbeciles can't piece this together.

[nicky g]

"I'll never understand people that complain about success. Some people are never happy. "

I don't thnk people are complaining. I think they're saying it wasn't particularly impressive. It was the easier bit. The harder bit, the post-war, needed much more careful planning which was not forthcoming.

[nicky g]

"Ok, I will agree with you on that one. The Germans kicked a$$. Then again, you can easily argue that the French in WWII were as pathetic as the Iraqis were in 2000. The Maginot line was a disaster waiting to happen. Good comparison actually. Both the French and the Iraqis were pathetic and provided no real resistance and surrendered the first chance they got. "

This is unfair. You are right that French were badly prepared and the Maginot line was poorly conceived ad implemented. But the French lost not because they they were cowards but because of the same reason that almost all of Europe fell to the Nazis incredibly swiftly; the Nazis had built up a massive war machine and understood much better than others the use of tank and air warfare. The British had to run away as quicly as the French surrenedered, and if not for a blunder by Hitler they would have been totally destroyed in Northern France. The difference with the French is that they had nowhere to go (not quite true; some of the Army excaped to and fought in North Africa). That Petain and others collaborated is hardly evidence of the sympathy of the entire country or army. I always wonder why France comes in for so much stick for being beaten when nearly all of the rest of mainland Europe fell to the Nazis just as quickly and had their own collaborators. And if they were such cowards, how did they hold the line in the far more brutal trench war fighting of the WWI? Even regardless of the Nazi threat, the French hated the Germans at that time; there had been wars on and off between them for 100 years, and endless disputes about Alsace Lorraine, and there is no way the majority would have capitulated to their most hated enemies deliberately.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wonder why France comes in for so much stick for being beaten when nearly all of the rest of mainland Europe fell to the Nazis just as quickly and had their own collaborators

[/ QUOTE ] Here may be some reasons(note I am not stating these as fact).
1. France needed help from the UK and the US to win WWI
2. France needed help to liberate its country during WWII
3. France originally got their ass kicked in Vietnam and then ran away.

Maybe those are misconceptions, but I think all three of those have contributed to what you were asking. Plus people in America like making fun of French people, just like we enjoy making fun of Canadians.

[nicky g]

"1. France needed help from the UK and the US to win WWI
2. France needed help to liberate its country during WWII"

True of a dozen or so other countries too. 1. is true of the UK too. The UK would have been screwed if it weren't for its geographic advantages.
"3. France originally got their ass kicked in Vietnam and then ran away."
So did the US.

"Plus people in America like making fun of French people, just like we enjoy making fun of Canadians. "

Fair enough. It's when people start meaning it seriously that worries me.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
True of a dozen or so other countries too. 1. is true of the UK too. The UK would have been screwed if it weren't for its geographic advantages.

[/ QUOTE ] yeah you are right, but those are just some reasons.


[ QUOTE ]
"3. France originally got their ass kicked in Vietnam and then ran away."
So did the US.

[/ QUOTE ] This is another topic entirely, and one in which I am not educated enough in to discuss at length.

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. It's when people start meaning it seriously that worries me.

[/ QUOTE ] Does it worry you when people say stuff about the U.S. as well?

[wacki]

Maybe I am being a little harsh against the French as they have had their moments in the sun.

I guess the reason Americans in general are so condescending to the French is because every time we bail them out they continue to be disrespectful.

Here's a quote that is harsh, and unfortuantely true.

"Who unties France from the tree and helps her find her panties every time the Germans are done with her? America, that’s who. Our reward? A nonstop stream of lip-sneering, cigarette-waving, mime-walking-a-dog snobbery. Time to return le favor."

http://www.maximonline.com/the_ride/articles/article_5274.html

I never indulged in the anti-france jokes until the UN corruption surfaced. I spent some time in france, and I have never ever met so many and such intesely rude people in my life. Example, a french Canadian I know was in Paris and was asking for directions in perfect French and the local kept on asking him to repeat what he was saying. The local was pretending not to understand the french Canadian just because he wasn't a native. My sister and both my brothers had similar experiences in France. I've heard many theories on why this is the case. A very knowledgable friend of mine thinks it's because they are no longer the big man on campus and they are very bitter about it. It's still no excuse for what they did to the UN, nor their behavior. Mark Twain had tons to say about their behavior.


I will agree that alot of americans make fun of Canadians but still respect them, especially their hockey players.

[nicky g]

"Does it worry you when people say stuff about the U.S. as well? "

Of course. My wife is from the US. I get extremely annoyed when people make dumb remarks about Americans. There is sadly plenty of that sort of thing about. There is also lots of legitimate criticism of foreign policy etc which I think is mislabelled as anti-Americanism. In the France case, I think complaints that their army was badly organised, that some of the top brass ended up as collaborators etc are perfectly fair, and I've made similar and probably harsher accusations about the US army. It;s when it descends into a sort of general accusation that the French as a nation are appeasers and cowards that it annoys me, as do remarks about Americans being stupid or aggressive or lacking a sense of irony.

[nicky g]

I've spent a lot of time in France and have had few problems. I find French (and Belgian) shop keepers to be kind of rude sometimes (to locals as much as foreigners, and especially to young people) but nothing awful. I have dealt with some unpleasant people in the states too Most are fine. People are people, some good, some bad.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
It;s when it descends into a sort of general accusation that the French as a nation are appeasers and cowards that it annoys me,

[/ QUOTE ] what about the accusations against France and the Oil for Food program? I am completely surprised people in Europe are mostly turning a blind eye to this.

[wacki]

I know you can't generalize any country, but France as a nation doesn't have the best US and UN history. I blame the leaders for that, not the people. I've met some good Frenchies, but seriously their country needs to at minimum appologize to the UN and the world. US troops are dying in Iraq, and I have to wonder how many of them were killed with illegal French equipment. I mean seriously, they signed that agreement. It's not like they were protesting, it was all underhanded and scandelous. And then Michael Moore wins the cannis film festival. I could go on and on. We have crap like that going on in our country too. But if the US president, or any US brass, was caught in a UN scandal like that, they would be impeached and probably go to jail! It would turn into a witch hunt. Or atleast I hope it would. I certainly would vote for a candidate that would make it that way.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It;s when it descends into a sort of general accusation that the French as a nation are appeasers and cowards that it annoys me,

[/ QUOTE ] what about the accusations against France and the Oil for Food program? I am completely surprised people in Europe are mostly turning a blind eye to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored]!

[tolbiny]

"3. France originally got their ass kicked in Vietnam and then ran away."
I dont even think the average american is aware of this.

[tolbiny]

what about the fact that most americans are turning a blind eye to us getting our oil from saudi arabia?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
what about the fact that most americans are turning a blind eye to us getting our oil from saudi arabia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have links for info from good sources? Embarrassingly enough I am not very familiar with the scandal. I know a little bit, but not alot.

The problem with Saudi Arabia is that we can't live without them, they are our life support. No matter what they do, our hands are tied. And their country is messed up enough as is. France is supposed to be our friend. That doesn't mean it's right. And I know that's not the best answer, but its reality.

It sucks really.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
what about the fact that most americans are turning a blind eye to us getting our oil from saudi arabia?

[/ QUOTE ] SA is one of 4 countries that we get a large portion of our foreign oil from. Canada is actually one of the biggest importers.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Adapt to what? THe whole thing lasted about ten minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky I cant go into too much depth on this. I will just say that a lot of new tactics were developed and used in this conflict. The net effect of these was to make the US forces more flexible and dynamic than they have ever been before. I will mention on specific thing and that is the logistical support of the armored units. The rapidity at which they were moving made the logistics very difficult but the we managed to deal with that.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but it wasn;t, and they more or less ran away. I don;t know to what extent that was known by the top brass at the time (although it's tempting to think one of the reasons they went for Iraq was that it an easy victory would make them look good). But in hindsight seems fairly clear that the Iraqi army was a total pushover.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the rub. Hindsight is 20/20. When you are a commander planning a military operation, you plan for the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario for Iraq was fairly grim, not that we would ultimately lose, but that casualties could be high. In fact it was our expectation that Saddam would attempt to do exactly that in order to weaken American support. Planning for every contigency is tough and the fact that we were able to accomplish our objectives quickly and efficiently is a tribute to the planning of the military commanders.

[The once and future king]

Ok time for a proper arse kicking reply.

1. As regards those hornets etc.

You cannot compare Ad hoq random distributions of certain weapons in the hands of non trained unmotivated and demoralised personal to full deployment in specialised trained units across strategic zones and in massed dug in formations. This is evinced totaly by the ad hoq casualties caused by some of the weapons you refer to. (1 airoplane 2 disbled tanks). If these weapons systems actualy existed in suffcient quantity and had been profesionaly intergrated properly into an army actualy capable of fighting then the invasion might have begun to approach being dificult. However nothing could be further from the truth.

2. Comparing the Iraq army to that of france circa WW2 is totaly facile. At that time on paper the French military was a match for the Germans. They even had larger formations of tanks and artilery. Some of the french tanks of the period had much bigger guns and heavyer armour than there german equivalents.

However the germans inveted a whole new way of waging war and perfected the use of combined arms. Instead of fighting the french head on, they atteacked and broke through at key points. Then massed formations of fast light tanks broke through and deystroyed the supply lines of the french army.

The french army had to surrender en masse because it literaly had no ammunition for its artilery and no fuel for its armour.

This is what makes the German invasion of france such a military marvel that at the time totaly stunned the world. They had taken on a equal to superior foe and brought him to his knees in a matter of weeks.

In no way is this a paralel for the Iraq invasion, where one side enjoyed total and utter superiority in technology, air, logistics, communications, armour, training, troop moral and artilery.

Also so the Iraqs had some french weapons. So feckin what. You think they phoned up Jaq to ask for them personaly. Im sure that Saddam had some but limited abilty to purchase weapons on the black market. Its worth remebering that earlier in its history when it was fighting Iran, Iraq recieved several weapons systems from good ole USA.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Also so the Iraqs had some french weapons. So feckin what. You think they phoned up Jaq to ask for them personaly. Im sure that Saddam had some but limited abilty to purchase weapons on the black market. Its worth remebering that earlier in its history when it was fighting Iran, Iraq recieved several weapons systems from good ole USA.

[/ QUOTE ] Oil for food program.....

[wacki]

The once and future king,

You are right about the comparison. The germans taking over France in 6 weeks is a much bigger feat than the US taking over Iraq in 2. I do not deny that. I still stand by my arguement that taking over Iraq in 2 weeks is a marvelous achievement. And good planning. The US, the British, and a few others also shocked the world with it's speed.

As for the weapons, will comment on that later. But a 1 sentence reply is look at the motives for selling the weapons.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
I still stand by my arguement that taking over Iraq in 2 weeks is a marvelous achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Iraq doesn't look too taken over to me, although it depends on how you're defining that term. To use the WWII comparison, once the Germans "took over" France, pretty much all they had there were police units and coastal defenses (directed against other nations, not for controlling France. Right now, we have more forces in action in Iraq than we used in invading Iraq.

I fail to see what you (or anyone else) finds impressive about a bodybuilder beating up a one-legged man.

[wacki]

Ok, trying to take into account all of the semantics.

Reason for starting this arguement:

1) Some people say invasion was poorly planned or recite Kerry's words "He had no plan going into Iraq". (misquoting Kerry's context)
2) I say no it wasn't and give reasons why.
a) Naval war on land (island hopping)
b) logistics were great
c) past generals said it was bad plan
d) media and past generals said not enough troops
e) and more

I don't have the time or the will to argue this further. I think it was a well planned invasion. The occupation is a different story, but the fight against the organized forces was well planned.

All I'm saying is you can't complain about something that went so smoothly. You can complain about the current state of affairs, but be happy about the invasion because it could of been alot worse.

I still think it was well planned, the logistics alone should be respected, but I'm done argueing.