stupid Sherman tricks

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

anyone signing up with the LE must have a couple of screws loose, or something to get away from desperately, and that is all they care about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to further sidetrack the conversation, the Legion does run applicants through Interpol before they let them in these days, so it's not quite the haven of murderers and child molesters that it used to be. Although I'm sure it's not unheard of for people to apply under assumed names.

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Guest wwb_99]

I would not doubt that former Waffen SS and other German soldiers found gainful employment in many 'small' wars following the big one, both in the Foreign Legion and other places. From the French point of view, they had a whole lot of revolts in just about every colony, and could really not be choosy about just who trained the soldiers enforcing the colonial policy. Once you are a well trained, professional killer, you can always find work, albeit in rather distateful places. It should be noted that the British used entire regiments of Japanese captives to put down revolts in the Pacific.

One often overlooked fact is that the 'World' part of the second world war was still being fought into the 1960s and 1970s. During the war many inssurectionist movements were started (by both sides, i.e. Ho Chi Minh got alot of neat toys from the US). The members of these movements did not recognize that they were in fact pawns in a much bigger game and continued their insurrection even though they were often fighting against the side which had helped them in the first place. Object lesson: keep the natives naked and hungry, with no inkling of national freedom. Do not practice 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' with them, as it often backfires.

WWB

[edit] And as a PS, my vote for the hardest soldiers goes to the Byzantine Cavalry of the 8th--10th centuries. Direct descendents of Belasrius' troops, those guys were hard. They had to be considering they held off several muslim empires with 80% the Western world's wealth at that time. As an anonomous tactician wrote, "The commander who has God and several hundred cavalrymen needs nothing else."

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[This message has been edited by wwb_99 (edited 12-18-2000).]

[The_Capt]

To pass the time, I'll wade into to Russian contribution argument.

A simple set of questions. What would have happened if the Russians had rolled over? What would have happened if the US hadn't entered the war. Tough to answer even with the hindsight of 50+ years.

Could the Russkies pulled off a victory if the West had not landed at D-Day and bombed the German war machine into dust. Remember by then the Russian war machine had wound up. They had really mastered the aspects of Operational Warfare and brought their war industry online. These guys had faced the bulk of the Germans on a one front war and won but would it have been enough.

Conversly, if Russia had surrendered does anybody think the West could have pulled off a landing in France facing the bulk of the German Army?

What if the Germans had time to develop the bomb?

In reality I think it is a lot like CM, you can play the same game several times and it never turns out the same.

The only thing I do find annoying is the arrogance of the Americans in suggesting that they "won" the war, when in fact their contribution was significant but probably less so than others.

A more serious question may be why did the Yanks take their time getting involved in two major world wars, when the industrial might of this nation may have prevented many more deaths in other parts of the world? Perhaps Korea and Vietnam were atonement for that mistake, though poorly executed and thought out.

And finally, is the new president going toward the same isolationist mentality. It ain't easy being the only superpower left and I think that awesome responsibility is not something to be taken lightly.

[I/O Error]

In defense of the fatherland, (America ) a good historian could EASILY make the argument that the only way the Russians managed to survive in the first place (and the British) is because of the THOUSANDS of tons we gave them.

We shipped everything from food to tanks to fuel all over the world to people we liked a little more than the Nazis. For years we were unwilling to throw in our men, but the idea of Lend-Lease appealed to us tremendously.

Let's hear for capitalism! HURRAH! (Sounds good to me, man...)

Russia simply was not prepared for the war that hit the Rodina, and so would have been unable to successfully survive without the external support she received. They needed time and beginning capital and equipment to make the huge factories to pump out tanks. We supplied that.

P.S. This is how we Americans like to fight our wars. Notice that in almost all the wars we have entered into, we spend billions on material that we throw into battle, but we almost never throw in lives if we can avoid it. The Russians take the opposite approach. In their case, it was (and is) easier and more efficient to replace men than it was to replace weapons.

Just depends on how you want to go about slaughtering your enemies, I suppose...

------------------

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

The only thing I do find annoying is the arrogance of the Americans in suggesting that they "won" the war, when in fact their contribution was significant but probably less so than others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the Pacific, the U.S. pretty much did win the war. Much is made of the fact that Germany lost in part because of a two front war. The U.S. won a two front war, and was at least a major contributor on both fronts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What if the Germans had time to develop the bomb?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans were so far from developing the bomb it isn't even funny. Hiesenberg (sp?) had convinced himself that the amount of fissionable material necessary for an atomic device would be several orders of magnitude greater than the amount that was actually necessary (he was a great theoretical physicist, but very sloppy with actual numbers and calculations). After VG day the allies stuck a lot of the German scientists in a house in England and bugged it. When it was announced on the radio news that the bomb had been dropped on Japan, The transcipts show that Hiesenberg was sure that the allies were lying. Much later, he tried to convince the world that he really was intentionally slowing down the German development process, to keep the bomb out of German hands, but I think that this is complete BS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Perhaps Korea and Vietnam were atonement for that mistake, though poorly executed and thought out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After a rough start, the American performance in Korea was magnificent. From the valiant defense of Pusan to the invasion at Inchon, the Americans (and to a lesser extent their allies) ran roughshod over the N. Koreans until the Chinese intervened. Even then, we fought the Chinese to a standstill.

And I think that we made more than an attonement for any fault on our part due to late entry into the war by providing the funding and materials for rebuilding Europe and Japan. In effect, we won the peace.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And finally, is the new president going toward the same isolationist mentality. It ain't easy being the only superpower left and I think that awesome responsibility is not something to be taken lightly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush may ultimatly be more "isolationist" that Gore would have been; however, to say that Bush would be an isolationist in the pre-WWII sense is laughable.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

A more serious question may be why did the Yanks take their time getting involved in two major world wars, when the industrial might of this nation may have prevented many more deaths in other parts of the world? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

American foreign relations don't exist in a vacuum. Before the American entry into both World Wars 1 and 2, American public opinion war strongly anti-war. The feeling was that they were both European wars, and that American boys had no reason to go off and die for European interests.

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[The_Capt]

Hey guys don't get me wrong, I would be remiss in stating that the US played less than a substantial role in both world wars. To respond to a few points.

a. I will give you guys the Pacific theatre and paid for in full. I am not convinced the Japanese had the industrial might to maintain their momentum in the first place and I do strongly believe if the US had gotten dirty in the first place (can anybody say the Royal Winnipeg Rifles?) they wouldn't have had to do the Island hopping campaign in the long run.

b. I said "what if" and if you believe the Germans would never been able to (ie 3-5 more yrs)develop the bomb, you are dreamin. In addition if you think the US would have had the political will to drop the damn thing in Europe you are dreamin in technicolor.

c. As to Korea and Viet Nam I would not even try to push these out as magnificent victories despite the tactical highpoints. Korea has yet to be finished and Viet Nam was a complete loss (may I suggest you guys try winning the peace over there as well). Both of these conflicts were in fact poorly thought out and lacked political will to in fact win. Where I come from it is also known as "half-assed". This is not to slight the troops on the ground who did their job to the fullest and I have the utmost respect for the men who fought and died, its the politician who sent them there with which, I have a serious problem.

d. As to laughable isolationism for the current administration, I would am sure the millions of corpses in Rawanda will feel much better knowing that we (and I include the entire Western World in this one) are not going to turn a blind eye to the plight and suffering outside our own borders. Don't even try to mention the Balkans as a counter point as a quarter million died there before the US even blinked. Lesson: never say never and nothin here is remotely funny.

e. As to the US shipping guns to everybody and his mother, I believe that policy has also been known to bite you guys in the ass now and again.

f. I know why the Americans stayed out of both wars until they did (or at least as much as anybody knows without haveing lived it). It was a rhetorical question design to point out a few cracks in the perfect history you Americans seem to try and write for yourselves from time to time.

Bottom Line; I know it must be hard to be on top and have everybody blame you for everything but hey, being in charge is always like that. Try to be a little more humble as anybody with that much power should be, (the only people worse than the Yanks have to be the French for arrogance). You are not perfect and never have been. You are neither ruthless enough nor wise enough to make the really hard choices at times. And neither is everybody else but at least we try to listen.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

(the only people worse than the Yanks have to be the French for arrogance) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take that back. I resent being second to the French in anything.

[Marlow]

You make a number of good points, some of which I could argue with, but I think that the issues are already OT enough. However, I will quibble with this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

d. As to laughable isolationism for the current administration, I would am sure the millions of corpses in Rawanda will feel much better knowing that we (and I include the entire Western World in this one) are not going to turn a blind eye to the plight and suffering outside our own borders. Don't even try to mention the Balkans as a counter point as a quarter million died there before the US even blinked. Lesson: never say never and nothin here is remotely funny.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any problems in Rwanda and the Balkans have less to do with "isolationism" than with 1) a failure of various local governments to uphold their responsibilities in their own neighborhoods (More so the Europeans who had the resources, but not the gumption to actually do anything about the Balkans); 2) the failure of the current administration to take necessary risks. The Clinton White House was one of the most active internationally of any American administration; however, Clinton was so risk adverse and poll driven, that he could not make the hard choices. This had nothing to do with interventionist/isolationist.

[The_Capt]

Your statement is isolationist by definition.."It is their backyard let them deal with it"..."It is a Europian war and has nothing to do with us". The UN did try to stabalize the area but lacked the funding or manpower to pull off the job. The American attitude was (until somebody lobbed a few mortars into a marketplace and we all got to see dead Grandmothers) non-interventionalist.."let them handle it". Yet the historic problems of the area really made a Europian solution impossible. Croats wanted Germans, but everybody else would have shot them on sight. Muslims wanted and got Turks, who damn near ruined the whole thing and the Serbs wanted Russia, who pushed guns on them anyway. The Brits, Dutch, French and Canadians were the only players who could even attempt impartiallity and were to outgunned to accomplish anything. UNPROFOR had about 10,000 troops at it height and as we finally saw with IFOR nearly 5 times that number was required and only one player could bring that to the table without causing reaction which could have been very dangerous...the US. Imagine if Germany or Russia said "OK we'll send in 50,000 troops".

Rawanda is something we should all be ashamed of and is a blatent case of isolationism (if that is the right word). "They don't look like most of us, they don't pose any real threat to stability so hey let em die." Even the freakin UN had that attitude in the end. We of course shook our heads and sent in UNICEF fund to salve our guilt but the awful truth is that a fraction of the force we committed to the Balkans could have stopped that genocide but the West for all of it's holy intention let it hapen anyway.

[Grobdeutschland]

Hey Capt,

You are right & you are wrong, but if there is a country who can be a superpower & can "govern" the would better then us, then by all means...step right up & take your swings.

This "world police" crap all the other nations throw on us is getting old. We will try to be the "nice guys" & if somebody doesn't like the way we do it...too bad, b/c somebody will always have **** to complain about. I see nothing wrong with pusuing a global strategy that places the country's own interests & goals before the rest of the world's. All the other nations do the same & I find thier criticism to be extremely hypocritical.

Yes, our policies may "bite us" in the ass sometimes, but so do the policies of other nations...the sellout of the Czech's to Hitler by Chamberlain & other democratic leaders (the U.S. included) is a good example.

I feel this is the best nation in the world. Is it perfect? No. Does a perfect nation even exits? No. This is all a matter of perspective & I'm sure you & others feel the same about thier country.

If the human race is going to survive & prosper, all the nations in the world will need to work together, however, I don't live my life by second guessing all the choices I've made & I don't feel my country should either.

------------------

"Far better it is

To dare mighty things...

Then to take rank with

Those poor, timid spirits

Who know neither

Victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt 1899

[Grobdeutschland]

Oh Capt, BTW, I have not even started my setup yet. I'm having some friends over & I'm too "busy" preparing stuff. I'll be done soon & then I'll make you eat your words on the battlefield...you REMF!

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Your statement is isolationist by definition.."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got to give the locals a chance before we step in, otherwise we are accused of interfering in other countries internal affairs or spheres of influence depending upon the situation. Also, my point was that Bush will not be a classic pre WWII isolationist. Clinton's problems were caused by a lack of decisiveness that likely resulted from Somalia, and not unwillingness to dabble in other's business.

[The_Capt]

REMF!!! I will have you know I am a Combat Engineer..."FIRST IN LAST OUT!!!!"

Hey guys I am not bashing the US(well OK maybe a little), although the UN still says Canada is number one. Must have something to do with the ability to take out your garbage without having to strap on a bullet proof vest and have the wife provide overwatch.

I would also argue that a objective review of history isn't "second guessing" but in fact an attempt to prevent us making the same mistakes, not unlike our last battle Grobby boy! :}

The world does need a police force as it is bloody obvious that nations will often be unable to deal with problems on their own. A global cooperation in keeping the peace (a Canadian idea by the way)is an evolutionary step forward.

The knot of this entire argument is not based on whether the US is good or bad but the arrogance in which you people do things..period. Look at Kosovo. Just about every expert at the table said "partition" is the only way in which this would work. But noooo! We had to try and build a wonderful melting pot where all people could live in harmony and pursue life, liberty and

hapiness. Guess what boys, it doesn't work. These people don't like each other and never will, you can't make me live together in peace and love. Once again American arrogance ruins what was an excellent exercise in intervention.

Now I know you guys are footing most of the bill and are taking most of the risks but that doesn't make you right. So my advise to your country is to, shut up, listen to people who know, think about what you are going to do and then have the will to do it no matter what everybody is saying. Approach the whole thing with an open mind and a healthy dose of humility wrt to the awesome resonsibility of the role which is being thrust upon you.

A little more Gary Cooper/Jimmy Stewart and less Senator Helms(sp?)

[Chupacabra]

Any time someone starts talking about America as if it's a monolithic whole, I turn off. Call it arrogance, call it whatever you'd like, but America's a big place, with a lot of people. It's very easy for people who've never lived there to try to characterize America as all one way or all another, but that's wishful thinking. And personally, I am quite sick of these bull**** "America should do this, America should do that arguments." I'm living in London at the moment, and I assure you, if I walked into a pub and started proclaiming on how England should ditch the Tories, abolish the monarchy and stop pussyfooting around with all this European Army nonsense, I'd likely get my face beaten in.

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Marlow]

I know I should just let it pass, but here goes.

First, I'd like to second Chuppy's (may I call you Chuppy? No? Well too bad.) comments on treating the U.S. as some unified monolithic whole. There is no real single "U.S. worldview," especially in the foreign policy realm. Under the U.S. Constitution, foreign relations are the bailiwick of the Executive branch, (i.e. the President), with some interference/cooperation from Congress. Thus, as the administrations change, U.S. policy can change, sometimes dramatically As an example, note the differences between the Reagan/Bush I administration, and the Clinton administration. If I have to spell out the differences, you obviously don't know enough about U.S. foreign policy to be criticizing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Must have something to do with the ability to take out your garbage without having to strap on a bullet proof vest and have the wife provide overwatch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me a break. Gratuitous cheap shots don't help your credibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The knot of this entire argument is not based on whether the US is good or bad but the arrogance in which you people do things..period. Look at Kosovo. Just about every expert at the table said "partition" is the only way in which this would work. But noooo! We had to try and build a wonderful melting pot where all people could live in harmony and pursue life, liberty and

hapiness. Guess what boys, it doesn't work. These people don't like each other and never will, you can't make me live together in peace and love.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't you say "never say never" in an earlier post? Are these the same experts that stood around and let the Balkans situation degenerate to where was prior to the Kosava situation? I don't buy your "the Europeans couldn't do it because the people there hate them" argument." This is a cop out by the Europeans because they refused to take responsibility for something that was ultimatly their problem (As an interesting aside, now that the U.S. is on the ground in Kosava, I see lots of reports where the European experts are now saying essentially that "the stupid Americans don't know how to run a peace keeping operation, we Europeans do it so much better"). So what would you propose? A thousand little countries that all have competing claims and continuous border wars? The partition has really stopped the ethnic Albanians from trying to instigate a Kosova like situation in areas that are still part of Serbia proper. The partition solution is a shot term fix, and a long term disaster.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Once again American arrogance ruins what was an excellent exercise in intervention.

Now I know you guys are footing most of the bill and are taking most of the risks but that doesn't make you right. So my advise to your country is to, shut up, listen to people who know,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my butt is on the line, I'm calling the shots. Period. The rest of the world can't whine for U.S. help, and then tell us how they could have handled the situation so much better, especially when there is zero evidence that any other solution would have led to a better outcome.

Almost Forgot: your initial comment was that you were afraid of the U.S. becoming isolationist, and now you seem to be saying that the real problem is not that the U.S. won't act in world affairs, just that it won't act in the way you want it to. An entirely different point.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-20-2000).]

[Grobdeutschland]

I knew that REMF thing would bring you out of your hole.

Now, like I said before...someone is always going to bitch & I really don't give a damn.

It's a put up or shut up kinda world.

I see no end to this topic. We Americans will just have to consider this international whining as the price we pay for being the top dog. Aaahh...life is so cruel.

How dare you write about my "last defence" defeat w/o mentioning that super-stug who killed 3 hellcats- 2 of them in a shootout at the same time! I will bleed you long & hard Mr. Engineer...Choo, Choo.

[Grobdeutschland]

Capt, was not the League of Nations the 1st real international police officer? This was the brainchild of President Woodrow Wilson (& yes I know it failed ), so how was it an "Canadian Idea" to form a world peace keeping force?

[I/O Error]

No nation-state has ever gotten ahead by following the orders of others. It is simply illogical for a nation to spend time, effort, men, and equipment in a conflict that is not of their own making and does not benefit them.

Especially when people whine about the job you do. Gratitude = good. Pissing off guys who don't want the job = We go home and laugh as you kill yourselves. All clear now?

But honestly. How can you expect us to use our own resources in conflicts where we get NOTHING at the end of the process and where we get little or no support? What percentage of ground troops we send into "trouble areas" predominatly American?

Remember: It is foolish to think that a Democracy/Republic (call it what you will) can or will be able to keep a straight course with regards to Foreign Policy. Especially in this day and age of all-pervasive media coverage.

Case in point: Somalia, 1991. Perfect humitarian cause. Best troops in the world, freshly pumped up from a successful war. Mission? Feed starving people, stop men with guns. Real crowd pleaser.

What happened? 20-30 U.S. Rangers get shot up (one corpse was actually dragged behind a pickup truck in front of CNN's cameras) and the United States government was FORCED by it's citizenry to "Bring our boys home!"

Never mind the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians starved as a direct result.

So, stop whining that America should fix the world. HELP fix the world, sure. Fix it singlehandedly? I will ignore all such ideas.

Until somebody is crowned God King Emperor of the World, we are NOT going to be able to keep everybody all lovey-dovey to each other. You know who are the only people who have ever managed to keep local peoples from revolting?

The Romans, the Byzantines, the Turks, The Macedonians, the Nazis, the Soviets, et cetera.

In other words: Only dictatorships have the sheer force of will to keep the peace. And most people don't REALLY want to subjegated to another version of the Pax Romana

Do NOT expect the free nations of the world to fix the rest of the world. To think such displays a fundamentally flawed view of humanity. (IMHO, maybe I'm just pessimistic. ) It's a damn shame, but it just won't happen. Keeping the peace entails killing off enemies and brutally punishing "subversives".

Only once THAT is done will our attempts to get everybody to play nice actually work. (I'm just glad somebody had the forethought to start training a new and unbiased police force for Kosovo. Pity it's taking so long... )

Anyway, just my two cents, disagree if you must just don't ignore what I said.

------------------

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

Edit: Spelling errors and such...

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 12-20-2000).]

[Thermopylae]

God King Emperor was not the title I was going to give myself. I was thinking along the lines of Grand Imperator or maybe First Citizen...Anyhow join my organization of politicians and scientists who will help me achieve this! (it involves nukes and sudden overthrow of governemnts)