TCPilot Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I was wondering if there is any plans in SC2 for France (After liberation) to reunite with Vichy France. I find it odd that the two Frances wouldn't reunite the second they get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Yeah me too but I do not know the history of what happened in Real Life after France was liberated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Germany invaded Vichy France when the Americans landed in Morocco and Algeria -- Operation Torch. The scuttling of the French Fleet at Toulon marked the end of the Vichy government, though many of it's officials continued at their jobs, working directly for the Germans. Defunct Vichy France was not a factor in the Liberation. [ February 15, 2003, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 As far as I'm concerned...Vichy France never fell. With all this UN/NATO talk recently, I'm wondering what kind of France we are dealing with :confused: Certainly not the France Napoleon created heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Genghis It's a sick world when hundreds of thousands of people join peace protests to help protect Saddam Hussein! But it's Bush's fault. Instead of this arms inspection nonsense the reason should be cut and dried: the man's a psychotic menace who's done his best to not only support but also to promote terrorism. He's been a murdering criminal all his adult life and a War Criminal since the seventies. In the interest of humanity we want him removed and brought to justice for his past offenses and we want his pointless regime replaced with a responsible, real government. But Americans have forgotten how to be that honest. These days the shortest path between two points is a maze. [ February 15, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Now you guys know why I thing D-Day was a military blunder. Bunch of Americans die (& the leaders knew thousands would get waxed) for absolutely nothing. We should have landed in Germany or not land at all. Nuke 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPilot Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 D-DAY FOR NOTHING!!!!!!!!!????????? How would we land in Germany!? We'd go through half the German navy and twice as much of their airforce. We'd also see about 1000% more Germans waiting to greet us I'm sure. Now....about the Vichy France thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 JerseyJohn - Hehe you know I find it amazing that the French have no problems standing up to the Brits and Americans but when it comes to them dealing with despots and dictators...they seem to always bend over backwards to appease them. What's also amazing is all these protesters are picking on the US as the bad guy here. Where are all the protesters against Saddam Hussein and Iraq?!?!? Not to stray too far off topic here but I think we should have just let Russia conquer all of Germany and France in WWII. With the USSR collapsing in 50 years, the US could just move in and pick up the pieces. Not like France was really a US ally anyways after WWII [ February 17, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Not to make this a political discussion here, but you guys are way off base. I was one of the peace marchers locally. This warmonger you call a president (he's not MY president) has had his sights set on Saddam since he was selected (not elected) in the 2000 election. He's obsessed with Iraq because of the oil and because his daddy is really running the show - and Saddam did try to assassinate him. Sure Saddam is a SOB. No one doubts that, but so are several of the leaders of this world - most notably N. Korea - and we're not going after them, are we? Furthermore, what is our exit plan? They had a meeting in London of the 15 different factions in Iraq a few months ago to try and iron out what kind of coalition government they could create when Saddam goes. Know what happened? They ended up fighting amongst each other so badly that 3 of them walked out of the talks! Can you imagine the chaos that will result after we get rid of Saddam? It will cost us billions each day we stay there and we'll be there for years. A recent poll in Britain showed that most people viewed the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace. They are right. I've fought in 'Nam and I will never again wish any kind of war upon anyone - American or Iraqi - and certainly not to satisfy the goals of an a$$hole like Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPilot Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 *Sigh* Now about the Vichy France topic.... True, Bush was never elected, no president is. They are selected by the Electoral College based on the amount of votes. And one more thing....this "war" with Iraq will cost us (in my opinion) about 10 casualties, 99% of which will be becuase some damn pilot is drunk or on drugs. THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE!? Hell, if we wanted to, we could push all you puny countries down, maybe toss a few nukes or unleash a wave of smallpox. Go have fun sipping your tea and wine while we squash your enemies for you and do all the fighting for you then claim you did it without a single word of gratitude. Now about Vichy France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openheimer88 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I could'nt have said it better Bull. Bush is a complete warmonger and is set on pushing his "personal" vendetta against Saddam regardless of logic or public opinion. He's going to push the west into an all out war with the entire Arab world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 JerseyJohn, the world dont protest to protect Saddam Hussein but against the cruelty of war. I was one of 5-10 million demonstratin on saturday to show my support for peaceful ways to solve this conflict. Collin Powells evidence have not succeeded in convincing nor the security counsil as well as Germany and France about how important a war is. There are two reasons to let the weapon-inspectors get more time; 1. A war would mean that millions of the iraqi-population would die. During the gulf-war 1991 USA launched 10 cruisingmissiles for the first 40 days. Now Bush plan to launch 800(!) in the first 2 days and let me tell you, there is no such thing as "smart weapons". Some of my friends here in Sweden have seen the devastation on children last time bombs fell on iraq. It´s horryfing stories they tell, how children dies in tornment by exploding bombs containing little plastic pieces carvin up all of their bodies. This is what war is, the civilians will take the mainblow. 2. If attackin-wars are allowed the whole fundation which the UN stands on is destroyed. All international politics are baased on the fact that all countries can defend themself but not be aggressive against others. And quite frankly, the evidence presented by Powell hasnt been to convincing. So with all due respect, lets increase the number of weapon-inspectors and give this some time before goin to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Kuniworth & Bullwinkle Thanks for taking the trouble to explain your views. Agreed that war is a last resort and that it's a noble thing to protest against it, especially when the stakes are so high. I'm not a warmonger, which I'm sure you both realize. If I thought there were any other way of removing Hussein from power I'd be all for it. I think it's basically the fault of the United States for not going all the way in '91. It would have been better for the world and much better for the Iraqis. I don't believe we stopped short for humanitarian reasons, I believe it was because the U. S. government thought there'd be an internal military revolution and we preferred a new generalisimo over the possibility of an Iranian style Fundamentalist regime. The United States is not a pristine innocent in all of this. This country has done more than it's share in making the present world such a twisted and dangerous place. It didn't have to be that way and I'm sorry my country didn't handle things better decades ago instead of choosing so many paths of lies, deceit and hypocracy. Hopefully we'll do things more honestly in the future, but I doubt it. Another thing I doubt, however, is that anything on earth will make Hussein a responsible ruler. He remains in power as the very embodiment of murderous tyrany and the benefactor and shield of world terrorism. His own people cannot remove him and every U. S. backed effort to do so by means of an insurection or coups has failed and resulted in the murder and hardship of innumerable Iraqis. He has to be removed and his regime replaced with a responsible government. Peacefully would be the best way. I don't think anyone wants a war. No one ever does, but I saw the smoke billowing over Manhattan with my own eyes and perhaps I'm a bit biased in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrogdog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Greetings. I’m sort of new here, and this is the topic I pick to make an entrance as it were. First off, to Jersey John, we could not have eliminated Saddam in ’91. It was explicitly stated that the mission was to evacuate Kuwait, and that’s it. It was upon that guaranteed condition that we had support from some of the Arab nations. Can you imagine how difficult the next coalition (this one for example) would be to assemble once we demonstrate what bad allies we are? Taking out Saddam was never an option then. To those who advocate the peace approach, as in all things, my opinion does not invalidate your own. But, there are a few things I don’t get. The first is, after 9/11 what did we see the administration ostracized for? Failing to act on possibly “telling” intelligence. As I remember, we had almost a witch hunt situation here. Be more proactive seemed to be the message. Now Bush is trying to do exactly that, be he can’t. Nothing he presents is good enough. I guess we have to wait for the Israelis to “take one for the team” before some of us get it. <shrug> One of the things that struck me when I first began to study WWII is the fact that Stalin never seemed to be villainized to the extent Hitler was. In Stalin you have a man who fried more OF HIS OWN PEOPLE than Hitler ever did Jews. In Saddam, you have a man who has already used chemical weapons against his own people. Folks yell about human rights and the need to see a smoking gun. Heh. You need more? I don’t get it. I think what has a lot of folks nervous is the timing of this. Who among has can say that they feel that the war on terror has *not* lost momentum? The fear is that Bush is just using this to keep us in the “proper stance” if you will. Now, folks like me think that this operation is PART of the already declared war on terror. Others obviously do not. Funny how things change. Once upon a time it only took one Pearl Harbor to make us mad, and keep us there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 JerseyJohn, as always a well balanced and insightful post. Yep Saddam should have been removed in 1991, no one would have protested if the US had influenced UN to go all the way. The iraqi army was in complete disarray after being crushed at the border. Now we will have a war where Saddam has learned his lesson will put his troops in the cities instead. It will be a bloodbath. I critizise USA for a lot of things. However Im not anti-american, I think your country is really great and done so much good but this conflict must be solved within the UN authority. Otherwise we will have total anarchy in international politics, and that will not the west benefit from. So lets give the weapon-inspectors some more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrogdog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Greetings Kuniworth. You could be right, maybe it would be a bloodbath. Or, it could be like it was in '91. All we heard is how high casualties would be, how we were facing the 4th largest army on Earth, and how "elite" the Republican Guards were after all those years of fighting Iran back and forth over the same 20 mile stretch of land. Maybe Saddam's got an army, but he has yet to show that he knows how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I doubt it would be a bloodbath on american soldiers, US will use its tech to minimize losses. But the civilian population will be the ones takin the blow. "Smart bombs" kills regardless of your wearin a military uniform or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrogdog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Yeah, especially when Saddam herds them like cattle in front of military targets so that he can sway world opinion when they die. Even so, it is good we have smart weapons, so as not to appear indescriminate regarding targeting. Wait, sorry, that does not seem to be the opinion of many. As I said, my opinion does not invalidate yours. But, remember the same things were said of civilians when we went at Afghanistan. Remember when the Taliban capitol was taken? They were liberated. I'll never forget the front page of the Boston Globe the next day. Joyous people running through the streets was the large front page photo. And then the stories. One guy was happy that he could play his favorite music again. You see, his neighbor had had his testiciles removed forcibly after having been caught doing same. Saddam shoots the generals that don't agree with him. Saddam gasses his own people when they don't agree with him. So, it's ok for him to do it *intentionally* to his own folks apparently, it's not ok when we do it unintentionally I guess - where is the outrage for the common Iraqi now? That Iraqis live in total fear of this oppresive and evil man was just showcased in the last "election", where he got over 99% of the vote. That was up from just 96% percent last time. Any guesses as to what happened to that 3%, or what will (if it hasn't already) happen to the dissenting 1% this time around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrogdog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I apologize if I have come on too strong. Probably not the best way to introduce myself to you fine folks. For the record, I agree that Bush should not act on his own. All I'm saying is that I just don't understand why more people aren't on board with him on this matter. But then, what fun would the forums be if we all agreed on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paqman Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 It sure is nice to see a forum where everybody's ideas are respected. I am opposed to an Iraq war. Yes, Saddam is a dictator, ruthless but let's not forget that the U.S. helped him while he was fighting the Iranians. He was no better back then. Even with smart bombs, you will be killing Iraqis who might be in the army, but are not there by choice. I think President Bush is attempting to divert attention from issues at home (for example, record deficit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiddle Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I am a veteran and believe that the administration is following a good line. The world has a mutltitude of problems that are very serious and the americans in general have a few extra. It is not possible to confront Iraq and Korea at the same time, nor fix the budget during these crisis. It is possible to confront Iraq, remedy that situation while keeping diplomatic pressure through China on the Koreans while doing our best to help the economy. Some of the administration ideas are off target, others are right on. No two front war. I do not have the information, intelligence nor education to second guess the government on these issues. I am not in favor of war nor increasing the inspectors. The Iraqis need to come clean, this is not a game of hide and seek. The inspectors are there to verify the destruction of the WMD, not to find hidden caches. People around the world need a smoking gun. The WMD is there, the inspectors have no chance to find it. 1,000 inspectors given a year would not find the WMD if the Iraq government with 200,000 troops at their disposal did not want it to be found. The efforts of the French are similar to the efforts of Chamberlain with Hitler. Allowing Saddam to deny, stall, neogiate, and compromise only weakens the position of the UN. The possibility of massive destruction in Iraq is good, so is the possibility of a coup once hostilities commence. We will be in Iraq a long time, similar to Afganistan, Kosovo and Korea. The cost to the American public will be great in terms of money, time and lives. The cost to the Iraqis could be greater, yet offset by a new freedom not seen in Iraq since pre-Saddam. A progressive secular muslim state is possible with self governing regions for the Kurds, Shiis and Turkomen. It will be a long time in coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I was a "Master of disaster" When i was in and we had a saying that was. "Napalm Burns little kids too" And that's the fact jack. I'd hate to see a bunch on children killed because Our president is a POS that needs to fix his Daddy's mistake. What we need to do is Bomb every Palace Bunker Complex at the exact same instant into dust. I'm sure we'd get that Scumbag without all the collateral damage. He needs to be removed there is no doubt but bush is doing it the wrong way. And the worst thing about it is Bush continually lie's to us about the reasons like we're a bunch of morons that can't see through his Bull****. What's more is Anytime We enter a country we should ANNEX it as a STATE. Eventually we will have on world Government. I'ts gonna happen eventually there's nothing we can do to stop it so it might as well be our form of gov if we gotta do all the fighting. Rebuilding a country then giving it to some bull**** faction or warlord or setting up a gov that's gonna get toppled by the military is the worst thing we can do to the iraqi people. But i seriously doubt Bush's administration cares about the innocents that are gonna die. That is what he in Saddam both have in common. Bush is gonna be the first President Voted out of office During a war. Watch He''l make sure we are still in a War for Re-election time. And don't forget your Duct Tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Twiddle: I do not have the information, intelligence nor education to second guess the government on these issues. I am not in favor of war nor increasing the inspectors. Lol you think that is what makes Bushs policy? The only thing making his policy is his Ego/Views/Desires. Saddam has been makeing him look like an idiot and he can't deal with it. I'd love to just put the both of them in a room and Beat the **** out of whichever one of them walks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Well I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my anti-war views here and really glad to see that others can see through Dubya's B.S. that he keeps shoveling down the throats of the American people. There are so many aspects of this to discuss, I can't address them all. One of the salient features to me is the fact that Bush tries to keep this country in a constant state of fear in order to gain more control of it. Now, I'm going to state something that is very unpopular here but something inside of me knows that it is true. That is that Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen. I'm not the only one who really beieves this. There was a colnel in the army who did and he was immediately dismissed I know others who have always had that same feeling too. The reason for letting 9/11 go is in concert with his bent on attacking Iraq. He wants total control of this country and dictators all over the world do it by fear. Now we have levels of terror alerts to keep us in line. He's cracked down on our human rights and put a Nazi-clone like Ashcroft in charge. The guy reminds me of Heydrich, in fact. Now I know that these are my views and they may not be popular but I believe them with all my heart. My gut knows them to be true and I always trust my gut instinct. It saved my life in 'Nam. Jersey, I know how painful it must have been to see the smoke from the towers. But there is no connection between bin Laden and Hussein. They are different types of terrorists. bin Laden's the guy you're after (although Bush doesn't talk about him anymore because Saddam's an easier target). I'm not on Saddam's side in this, of course. But I believe that if Saddam & Bush had been raised in each other's countries and rose to the posts they have now, that the world would be in the exact same situation it is now. They are cut from the same cloth IMO. I could go on all day, but I've said enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Some intelligent discussion here but definitly beyond the scope of SC, moving to the General Forums... Thanks, Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts