Jump to content

French government shows it's true colors


300Mag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gotta say, if you decide to blow yourself up rather than pick up a rifle, you're pretty stupid in my book.

No, these people have lost the will to live. It makes a far better statement to kill yourself for your cause - it shows that the cause is not for you, it is greater than you.

First, three thousand civilians in a couple dozen bombing runs does not happen, period.

Okay, it may have been an exaggeration on my part, I admit.

Civilian casualties occur but no where near at the level you are depicting.

This I disagree with. While the coalition forces (note: I haven't been referring to them as the US) may not cause such collateral damage themselves, if Saddam sees his people rise against him he will kill them too (much like in the first Gulf War when the US - yes, it is intentional this time - encouraged the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam but then pulled out, leaving him to kill these civilians). This coincides with your next statement too:

Second, Saddam has a tendancy to position his military capabilities in the middle of urban areas. Intentionally.

Third.  The statement itself is way off base.  I don't need to tell you why.

And lastly... do you want to explicitly state what I think you're implying here...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is the difference between al-Qa'ida flying a plane into a building killing three thousand American civilians and coalition bombers killing three thousand Iraqi civilians in a couple dozen bombing runs?

I state that this sentence is offensive. It sounds to me like you are justifying al-Qa'ida Pyro.

I hope that's not what you mean. I hope I know you better than that.

Are you saying that Osama is RIGHT? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree the US should be more careful where its bombs fall, there is a difference. With terrorists, civilians are the intended targets and with the US, they are unfortunate accidents. Personally I think they should go to greater pains to avoid collateral damage, but it is not the same as actually targeting civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they rise up against coalition forces, they are no longer civilians. They are combatants. If they rise up against Saddam, good for them. The sooner this guy is water vapor, the better. Bottom line is that if this conflict happens, he will not survive. What Saddam chooses to do when faced with this reality is an unknown, but it's pretty easy to guess. The faster he is taken out, the lower the casualty numbers will be. Especially on the civilian side.

With regard to who matters more. budgie is very correct. Intent is 99% of that equation.

How many militaries in the world drop leaflets before an area is bombed? We do it all the time. Keep in mind that when we do this, we put our own people at risk as it gives away our intentions and blows the element of surprise. We did this constantly during the first Gulf War. I think it's fair to say we make a greater attempt at avoiding civilian casualties than has ever been done before. Precision guided weapons in theory were not only designed to hit the target with greater accuracy. They were also built to minimize collateral damage.

Edited by 300Mag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two BIG differences between now and then.

1) Stated objective of Gulf War I. Remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That's all that the coalition would swallow at the time, mainly because of point number 2.

2) Egypt and Syria were members of the Gulf War I coalition. Arabs fought with us. Killing or deposing an Arab leader was a sensitive issue. Occupation was even more sensitive.

We had a division of tanks just shy of the capital. We could have finished it on a lunchbreak. We stopped due to those sensitivities, which had been aired by Arab coalition members.

Whole different ballgame then and now.

Edited by 300Mag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pyro,

they could calm themselves down and negotiate. if it wasnt for arafat and his band of loonies, there would already be a palestinian state. arafat turned down barak's offer several years ago, right before the violence broke out. arafat is now asking for less than he was offered several years ago. the whole situation can, in my opinion, be laid at arafat's feet.

there are palestinians who want peace, but hamas, islamic jihad, and al-qaeda are out "on a mission from god" to kill the "sons of monkeys and pigs". not because of atrocities done to palestinians, but because of pure hatred and evilness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, tyovan. That's exactly right. Barak was willing to give so much that his own people started to dislike him. Remember. Before Arafat was a "diplomat", he was a terrorist leader. As far as I can tell, same thing now except he's got a business card.

Bottom line is this. If Sharon tells his Army to stand down, they do. If Arafat does the same it's either a farse, or they tell him to get bent. Either way, these people have no reigns to pull on. So what should Israel do? Brush it off? If they wanted every inch of dirt in Gaza and the West Bank, they could take it in the time it takes the average person to brush their teeth. That shows some restraint on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen,

You all have to understand one thing here, France is still holding a grudge against the United States since the 1980s.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan made a statement to the nation and to the world, directed at terrorist, quoted saying "You can run, but you can't hide!" He then gave a presidential order to strike at the families of know terrorist where ever they are at. So US Special Forces tacked down a know location of a main Terrorist Leaders family Apartment in France and blew the building up with everyone in it and without informing the French Government of the operation and of the targets. Bad new was the families were tipped off and were not in the building when it was destroy and several innocent familles were killed in the botched operation.

Later in defiance to United States asking to use Frances airspace to have our bombers fly straight from Spain to Libya to strike directly, refused access and made a stink about it to the general public as well as mention the botched special forces mission made in its country by the US. (Note that the USS Stark was hit by a French Made Exorcet Missile that Libya fired at the ship)

France has been also at the fore front against the UK as well.

During the Battle of the Falklands, the British lost a couple of their warships to the same French made missile.

You decide how to view their defiance towards the US!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the cost of the war.... I'd rather use a multimillion dollar missle that is accurate and does the job of destroying the target than risking the lives of the soldiers and the civilians... You start to fling soldiers around in populated areas and you've got BHD all over again. Lots of casualties on both sides. The point is, I think the US has good intentions here along with other countries. I'm sure many European countries would gladly support the US, heck, even some Arab Nations would support the US but they can't because it would hurt their relations with the other countries that are close to them. The US is probably going into Iraq, the question that the world should be asking now and talking about is what to do when it's over....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somthing I thought of over the weekend

"The last time France wanted to wait for more evidence, It marched through Paris with a German flag."

Just a little personaly quote I thought would amuse you.

Note: After being reminded, I realized that this might be taken out of context so I state in my post below.

Edited by =UE=Swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The casualty count for France during WW2 was around 250,000 (military.) They lost around 350,000 civilians. Interesting point of note. They are the only one of the major allied country to have a higher civlilian casualty count than military. Even the Soviet Union, which lost nearly 20 million, did not have a higher civilian casualty count. That, even with Stalin.

Poland had an extremly high civilian casualty rate. Same with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Any country that the German war machine went through had a very high civlian casualty rate.

Hitler's henchmen must have been pretty nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

750 000 Frenchman laid down their lives in WWII protecting their country.

...and they did a fantastic job.

All kidding aside, the point is that France's reluctance to confront Hitler militarily ultimately led to their very quick defeat. This Gulf War scenario in many ways reflects the situations and events leading up to WWII. Let's learn from our mistakes, for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the start of WWII, 1939 for everyone in Europe, 1937 for China, 1914 for Korea, France wasn't strong enough to challenge Hitler. He took the Rhineland back and they had to sit back and watch.

Now, France could probably take Iraq all by itself. The problem is, it doesn't want to. Lets stop the "we bailed them out in WWII" BS. They had to capitulate or suffer immense destruction and anyway, their military was defeated in days. You guys think a proud, and let's face it, snobbish people like the French wanted to be occupied by germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, France could probably take Iraq all by itself. The problem is, it doesn't want to. Lets stop the "we bailed them out in WWII" BS.

It may be a bit easier for you to let this kind of stuff go than me. I've had to watch this for years. Time and time again. It's not just WW2. It's just gotten much worse since the 1960s, where they adopted a policy of "let someone else do it." Every major power involved in that war took heavy casualties. They fact that they did as well does not give them precident to take a diplomatic dump on everyone else.

The ironic thing to me is that France is guilty over the long haul of 99% of the traits it now tries to pin on the US.

Edited by 300Mag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@budgie

At the start of WWII, 1939 for everyone in Europe, 1937 for China, 1914 for Korea, France wasn't strong enough to challenge Hitler. He took the Rhineland back and they had to sit back and watch.

I am sorry to say that you are mistaken on this. I did my Senior Mid Term Essay (high school) on this very subject. Prior to 1939 Hitler could have no more stood up to the French Army than I could go to the moon now. And it just wasn't Frances fault for this either. Every other major country of time sat back and did nothing while Hitler went about violating every term and condition set out by the Treaty of Versailles. Secondly when France surrendered to Germany in World War Two the government that was set up to run France by the French was pro Nazi. This is a fact. The French in turn, turned over to the Germans every piece of military equipment it had. The German occupation of France was not a hayday for the French don't get me wrong, however the ones that were in the French Government at the time of the occupation were German sympathizers.

Don't forget too it was the French that asked the US to help in Vietnam and then left the US hanging when the crap hit the fan. The French have been dogging most of the rest of the world for time immortal. Look at the way Chirac handled the european countries looking to join the EU when those countries signed declarations supporting the US stance with Iraq.

Stout Hearts

Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...