More War Bowlocks

[Bergman]

Re: SUN-worshippers, by Jingo!

What collossal investment?

What did they "invest" in?

How much? Over what period? For what return?

Do you really believe the CIA gave Saddam US taxpayers dollars to buy French, Chinese and Russian weapons?

The Iraqis went into Gulf war 1 with the kit they held from the Iran-Iraq war. Please tell me of any US or UK supplied weapons system they employed against US or UK in 1990/91. I know of only one and that dates back to 1950s.

Wrapping unsubstantiated opinion in flowery verbiage has always failed to impress me.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re:The French!

>These were supplied by Germany, perhaps in all innocence. <

It's the 'perhaps' that makes the sentence a masterpiece.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[doris]

France and Germany

In the Telegraph today there is an article claiming that the reason that Turkey did not let US or UK troops through was that France and Germany warned that EU membership would be a forever no no should they side with the yanks. If that is the case it puts our euro partners on, as near as damn it, Sadam's side. Maybe bombing Paris is an option and after all we have had enough practice on Berlin!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kgi]

Re:The French!

so the the twelve batches of anthrax that were supplied to the iraqi's by the centre for disease control in the US was an oversight?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: More War Rowlocks

.. but at least the ICRC have representatives in Quantanimo (XRay), which is perhaps rather more than can be said of the POWS's in Iraq.

I see now that the American engineers paraded on Algecira have been found in a shallow grave. In fact the Americans are playing it cool - despite the fact the bodies were wearing the right uniforms with the right tags, they're waiting for DNA confirmation - but it doesn't look great...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: More War Rowlocks

Also worth noting that ICRC has already visited Iraqi POW's in US/UK hands - the reverse has expressly not happened.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Viking]

Re: Keep the bu**ers out

Its easy. If the Arabs dont went the US and Brits in their countries. Then its up to the Arabs, to keep 'their' 'nut case' muslins out of ours.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Re:The French!

Not on my part.

The source would indicate that the purpose for supplying this stuff was "disease control". Clearly belief in this is subject to a degree of cynicism. However.

A considerable amount of resource of both equipment and expertise is required to develop a viable weapon from 12 small samples. There is no evidence to suggest that the US supplied such resource.

Anthrax has never been used as a weapon by Iraq against anyone.

Indeed there is a body of opinion that says Saddam has no such weapon. I think this body includes Saddam, the French and the Russians - but not me!




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: France and Germany

<<maybe bombing Paris>>

Sounds good to me Doris<s>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kgi]

Re:The French!

technically what cdc did was unlawful, the twelve batches were used as a way of getting it out of the US without alerting the watchdogs, you are correct anthrax was never used, possibly because of problems with a suitable delivery system, mustard gas was used quite extensively,but the delivery system is simple, when you have air superiority, the mustard when it was used was sprayed in higher concentrations than would normally be used in a battlefiield situation,which inflicted severe casualties on the ground, by the by have you read scott ritters book "war on iraq" it filled in a lot of holes in what i know about chemical warfare, and i would recommend this book to anyone.........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Anchorite]

Re: SUN-worshippers, by Jingo!

(News) The history of Irak actually started some time before 1990. Earlier,
various grubby scenarios had been played out in this theatre with the various
actors often changing roles (Demon King one day, Little Boy Blue the next and
vice versa).
A little historical perspective is not out of place at a time when it is fashionable
to kick the sand of Omaha Beach (1945) in Chirac's face. The French can exhume
La Fayette (1777) or - why not? - that early 'liberator' of the downtrodden English,
Guillaume le Conquérant, completely anglicised to William (1066).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: why not 1066

ooh can't let that go.

William1 was specifically chasing the crown and outright ownership of England - and he soon introduced the idea that a king commands homage directly from all citizens rather than indirectly via barons. This paved the way for dicatatorial regimes - perhaps as in Iraq. However, Wiliam was a Norman, not French. Possibly explaining why brits have a more pugilistic nature which won an empire, whereas the french (but not Corsicans) have historically specialised in the more cultured pleasures of fine food, witty remarks and running away.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: why not 1066

william had been promised the accesion by harold but harold renaged.
william wasalso known as william the bastard
on account of his luck at darts.

i do have to take issue with your comments
...'the french (but not Corsicans) have historically specialised in the more cultured pleasures of fine food, witty remarks and running away. '

the french are more renowned for their sarcastic remarks than witty ones IMHO. and far from running away often welcome them with open arms and pretend to be in the same gang, erstwhile keeping up to their future liberators the pretence of resistance. that way they get to sell champagne at 2 victory parades. the rest of what you say is correct.



<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>I can't walk on water, but I do run on Guinness</font color=red>

 

[Twister_Ken]

France and the second world war

I know that it is a common Anglo Saxon trait to regard the French as serial surrenders, based on th erapid over-running and capitualtion of that country in 1940. But that has to be understood in the context of 1914-18 or (1916-18) if you are American.

France fought long and hard in the first world war, and suffered dreadfully. Not only was most of that war fought on French territory, but the French suffered a higher proportion of casualties than the other allied nations (and most of the axis nations as well).

FYI, the following figures are numbers mobilised, numbers killed, numbers wounded, numbers missing and prisoners, and finally percentage 'casualties' of those mobilised.

British Empire, 8,904,467. 908,371. 2,090,212. 191,652. 3,190,235. 35.8%
USA, 4,355,000. 126,000. 234,300. 4,500. 364,800 . 8.2%
France 8,410,000. 1,357,800. 4,266,000. 537,000. 6,160,800. 76.3%

Germany 11,000,000. 1,773,700. 4,216,058. 1,152,800. 7,142,558. 64.9%

So France, which was on the winning side in the WW1, actually sustained higher %age casualties (and from a smaller population) than the losing side.

It's postulated, quite convincingly in my view, that that is a very important reason why, only a generation later, the French nation had no stomach for a second war. My French father in law, born in 1910, would describe how the France he grew up in seemed to be a nation of grandparents, widows and cripples (mutilés de guerre).

The American insistence that the French are only good at defeat seems merely to reinforce my opinion that the American nation knows no history but its own.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

France and the second world war

interesting stuff.

Following the same historical thread, I have wondered if the eu/ec was at least initially driven by the (quite rational) French fear of a demonstrably war-starting neighbour (er, I mean germany) and this reciprocated eagerly by a guilt-ridden postwar W Germany anxious to do something, anything, to be seen internationally as a proper country again?

My separate vague "pugilist/adventurer/internationalist" theory about the brits (or english at least) derives from the idea that some of the most pugilistic members of the hardiest races (romans, vikings, normans) have ended up "English". Hence we love foreign cars, and holidays, and are (relatively) not racist - at least in comparison with other western european countries, esp France



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Re: SUN-worshippers, by Jingo!

Hmmmm

Notice total lack of answers.

If you like chequered histories perhaps a study of Algeria would be of interest.

Then again

Perhaps not

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kgi]

Re: France and the second world war

Bloody hell Ken, way to go......thats what i call a post !!!!!!!!!!!........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[davidhand]

Re: Keep the bu**ers out

The quote I like best, from a muslim cleric in London, "democracy is the civilized face of satan".

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: France and Vietnam

Another fact often forgotten was that France fought this subsequent to the 2 WW, prior to the US stepping in.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Anchorite]

Re: Keep the bu**ers out

And war is merely capitalism with the gloves off.

<hr width=100% size=1>