<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3771401.stm' target='_blank'>The British Communist Corporation:D </a>
Bush is way off line here if the war on terrorism was anything like WWII the French would have surrendered after 9/11. Seriously though, bad comparisson in my opinion.

MaumeeRocket Wrote:<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3771401.stm' target='_blank'>The British Communist Corporation:D </a>
Bush is way off line here if the war on terrorism was anything like WWII the French would have surrendered after 9/11. Seriously though, bad comparisson in my opinion.

How so? The war on terror is a global war and the French surrendered during WWII AND the war on terrorism.


Question....

How do you fight a Mirage Jet with a Cessna?

Answer.....

You turn and fly in it's path. It'll soon turn and run.

Question....

How many gears does a French tank have?

Answer....

4. 3 reverses and one forward in case they get attacked from behind.

Question....

Why are there so many trees lining the streets in Paris?

Answer...

So the enemy can march in the shade in the hopes of being lenient on the Parisians and French.

Question...

What dumb*** country created the Maginot Line but only on the border of Germany and France...leaving Belgium unguarded like idiots so that the Nazis would just come in through Belgium?

Answer...

The French.

Question...

..............who gave up Jews to the Nazis during WWII to be exterminated like they were nothing but animals because they were "afraid".

Answer...

The G Damn French.

Wow Kev, after reading that I suddenly feel the urge to sit in front of my TV and watch a Fear Factor, American Idol, and O'Reilly Factor marathon while eating hostess twinkies and swilling cheap beer. :eek:

RebelKev Wrote:

MaumeeRocket Wrote:<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3771401.stm' target='_blank'>The British Communist Corporation:D </a>
Bush is way off line here if the war on terrorism was anything like WWII the French would have surrendered after 9/11. Seriously though, bad comparisson in my opinion.

How so? The war on terror is a global war and the French surrendered during WWII AND the war on terrorism.

RebelKev, go get that library card, check out some books on WW2, ask the WW2 generation in your community, and read some WW2 era newspapers from big American, British and German cities and you should clearly see that this current conflict is not very similar to WW2.

I know you are too lazy to do this, and would rather cling to myths.

Oh well, your illusion, not mine! :drink:

About 56 million soldiers and civilians died in World War II.

I posted this under the topic "Visitors to Hell" but I'll do a copy and paste here as it seems appropriate.

____________________________________

I may get a fact or two wrong and the historians among you might correct me if I do but this is basically the story of Company A, 116th Infantry, 29th Infantry Division, VA Army National Guard on June 6, 1944.

The 116th Infantry was assigned to take Omaha Beach. No one in his right mind would have attacked a beach like Omaha except for the fact that American bombers had pounded the hell out of it and the troops manning it weren't German troops but Polish conscripts. Except that wasn't true. American bombers missed the beach entirely and dropped their bombs about 5 miles inland. The defenders weren't Polish conscripts but were well trained regular German infantry.

There were four German strongholds focused on Company A's sector. That would have been bad enough had Companies G & F landed in support as they were supposed to. However, like almost every other company in the Regiment, they landed in the wrong location so Company A had no support whatsoever.

As Company A approached the beach at 0630 one Higgins boat with ammo took a direct hit and exploded. None of the 30 men aboard survived. Another approached the beach and dropped its ramp. Not a single soldier got off the boat alive. In the span of approximately 30 seconds, Company A had lost over 60 of its slightly more than 200 soldiers. One boat sank about 1/2 mile offshore. There were 3 survivors. The rest drowned. They waited for another boat to take them to shore but the incoming boats had been told to ignore anyone in the water and let them wait for rescue craft. Finally, a returning craft picked the survivors up. They asked to be taken to shore but the coxswain refused. They were the lucky ones.

By 0640, only one officer was alive. Every sergeant was either dead or wounded. This was 10 minutes into the battle.

Sgt Thomas Valance dropped his equipment in the ocean to keep from drowning. He was floundering in the water and one hand was in the air when he took one bullet through his palm and another through the knuckle. Pvt. Henry Witt rolled next to him and shouted, "Sergeant, they're leaving us here to die like rats. Just to die like rats." Pvt Witt did not survive. Valance took another bullet in the left thigh that broke his hip bone and received two more flesh wounds. His pack was hit twice and the chin strap on his helmet was severed by a bullet. When he made it to shore, there was not one live person around him. As Valance recalled, "The bodies of my buddies were washing ashore and I was the one live body amongst so many of my firends, all of whom were dead, in many cases very severely blown to pieces."

Lt. Edward Tidrick immediately took a bullet to the throat while exiting his boat. He staggered to the sand, flopped next to Pvt. Leo Nash and said, "Advance with the wire cutters." He was immediately ripped from head to pelvis with machine gun bullets.

Pvt Gil Murdoch found two live members from his boat. One was Pvt. George Roach and the other was Sgt. Wilkes. Murdoch asked Roach how he was and Roach said, "I can't see. I've lost my glasses." Murdoch asked Roach if he could swim and Roach said no. Realizing they couldn't stay where they were, Murdoch and Roach hid behind a knocked out boat. Roach was eventually picked up by another Higgins boat and made it ashore around 1030.

One of the luckiest boats was commanded by Sgt. Lee Polek. The boat started to swamp and the coxswain dropped the ramp. His 3 squad leaders were killed immediately. When he finally made it to the sea wall, he took a count. There were 11 men from his boat left alive, most of them wounded.

The next day, General Cota, commander of the 29th Infantry Division ran into Pvt Roach. Cota asked Roach what company he was with, "and when I told him he just shook his head." Company A was completely out of action. Of the over 200 men in Company A that prepared to storm Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, a total of eight were ready for duty on June 7. Less than 40 had survived.

Their sacrifices weren't in vain. The dead of Company A left rifles, BAR's grenades, mortars, mortar rounds, flamethrowers and other equipment scattered across the beach. As subsequent waves came in, many of those soldiers would be dropped in deep water and be forced to drop their equipment or drown. The equipment from Company A that made it to the beach would prove invaluable to these soldiers.

Despite my love for debating all things political, ah hell, all things, I have no political motive in this one. I post it to remind us all that June 6 should have a very special place in our memory. The national D-Day memorial is located in the sleepy little town of Bedford, VA because 23 of Bedford's finest died in less than 15 minutes on June 6, 1944. If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to go. It is a very powerful experience and it reminds us of the sacrifices made by the members of the "greatest generation." As the poem at the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" says:

And when his days are over
To Saint Peter he will tell
One more soldier reporting Sir
I've served my time in hell.

Did I say that it was similar in the aspect of casualties? No. It IS similar because we are fighting a global war and one that, if we lose, will affect our way of life.

RebelKev Wrote:Did I say that it was similar in the aspect of casualties? No. It IS similar because we are fighting a global war and one that, if we lose, will affect our way of life.

Yet, sadly, Bush has done little to tackle the problem of terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still missing, and the United States has just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, a few of whom might actually be looking for bin Laden.

Meanwhile, we have 135,000 troops in Iraq, a country that had no connection to bin Laden, no connection to the Sept. 11 massacre and no connection to any other terrorist attack against the United States.

If this truly is a "war against terrorism," it would be nice if Bush would actually fight it -- instead of pissing away our money and lives in Iraq.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Did I say that it was similar in the aspect of casualties? No. It IS similar because we are fighting a global war and one that, if we lose, will affect our way of life.

Yet, sadly, Bush has done little to tackle the problem of terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still missing, and the United States has just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, a few of whom might actually be looking for bin Laden.

Meanwhile, we have 135,000 troops in Iraq, a country that had no connection to bin Laden, no connection to the Sept. 11 massacre and no connection to any other terrorist attack against the United States.

If this truly is a "war against terrorism," it would be nice if Bush would actually fight it -- instead of pissing away our money and lives in Iraq.

Where is most of the fighting? Are you saying there are no terrorists in Iraq? Nick Berg would have disagreed.

Missing: 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas, between 100 and 500 tons of other toxins including botulinin, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin, 15 to 20 Scud missiles, drones fitted with poison sprays and mobile chemical laboratories.

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Did I say that it was similar in the aspect of casualties? No. It IS similar because we are fighting a global war and one that, if we lose, will affect our way of life.

Yet, sadly, Bush has done little to tackle the problem of terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still missing, and the United States has just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, a few of whom might actually be looking for bin Laden.

Meanwhile, we have 135,000 troops in Iraq, a country that had no connection to bin Laden, no connection to the Sept. 11 massacre and no connection to any other terrorist attack against the United States.

If this truly is a "war against terrorism," it would be nice if Bush would actually fight it -- instead of pissing away our money and lives in Iraq.

Where is most of the fighting? Are you saying there are no terrorists in Iraq? Nick Berg would have disagreed.

Saudi Arabia and suburban Buffalo have Qaeda, too. It doesn't mean the answer is toppling those governments.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Did I say that it was similar in the aspect of casualties? No. It IS similar because we are fighting a global war and one that, if we lose, will affect our way of life.

Yet, sadly, Bush has done little to tackle the problem of terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still missing, and the United States has just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, a few of whom might actually be looking for bin Laden.

Meanwhile, we have 135,000 troops in Iraq, a country that had no connection to bin Laden, no connection to the Sept. 11 massacre and no connection to any other terrorist attack against the United States.

If this truly is a "war against terrorism," it would be nice if Bush would actually fight it -- instead of pissing away our money and lives in Iraq.

Where is most of the fighting? Are you saying there are no terrorists in Iraq? Nick Berg would have disagreed.

Saudi Arabia and suburban Buffalo have Qaeda, too. It doesn't mean the answer is toppling those governments.

We are addressing the issue in Buffalo as well as around the country. Saudi Arabia, and it's about damn time as I DON'T think they are our ally, is finally addressing the issue there. Surely you don't think that Saddam would have addressed the issue of terrorism and Salman Pak in his own country on his on. He supported terrorism, both directly and indirectly. He paid families of homicide bombers that attacked Israel...people who, by their actions of only targeting civilians, are terrorists by definition. Saddam needed to go. I was never concerned with Saddam directly attacking the US. What I was concerned about is him giving WMD's, WMD's acknowledged by the entire world and bi-partisan opinion right here in the states, to terrorists in his attempt to do harm to the United States. After 9/11, all thought processes needed to be changed. National security had to take not only another route, but multiple routes. It isn't just Al Qaeda, it's global terrorism no matter what they call themselves and it's not something we should see as an American security issue, but a global issue. France, England, Spain, the US, and other "civilized" and advanced cultures stand to lose if we don't address the issue of terrorism and it we can't defeat it with diplomacy.

Note to the clueless: There have been no WMD's found. :wave:

See above for a list that the Bushies claimed we'd find.

Oddball Wrote:Wow Kev, after reading that I suddenly feel the urge to sit in front of my TV and watch a Fear Factor, American Idol, and O'Reilly Factor marathon while eating hostess twinkies and swilling cheap beer. :eek:

Cheap American Beer? What are you Canadian?

Oddball Wrote:Note to the clueless: There have been no WMD's found. :wave:

See above for a list that the Bushies claimed we'd find.

So he never had any? If not, we wouldn't have been there and you might want to call up your Democratic leaders and tell them they were wrong, as that was the intel Bush was going on. If so, where are they now? The difference between you liberals and me is this, we found a shell of Sarin and you state, "Wow, one shell, I guess that means we found WMD's(Sarcastically), with me I ask, "Where did they get the shell and where are the others?". There was no QUESTION as to whether or not Saddam had WMD's. The question is, where are they now? Bush didn't concoct a story about WMD's. It was common knowledge throughout the Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, AND the GW Bush admin that he had them and we had two populaces that can attest to this with experience. You guys make it seem as if he never had them showing your own naivety...or is it something as dangerous as gambling national security with a political agenda? I tend to think the latter.

...also, the WMD's Bush said we'd find were documented by weapons inspectors and many talking heads in the Clinton Administration.

Oh, and keep the personal attacks out of the boards and I'll do the same. I am getting tired of people stating they do not wish to participate in this forum because of the personal atacks being launched daily. This is a new start and I will no longer tolerate flaming of ANY member, Liberal or Conservative. If you wish to open up a combative dialogue I suggest you get Yahoo, AOL, MSN, name your flavor messenger and take it there.

That is probably the dumbest rationalization I've heard yet. Of course we know that he HAD WMDs, we freakin' gave them to him. In fact, Bush's daddy probably still has the reciepts. We attacked because we said he still possessed them and that made him a threat to the U.S., a rationale that we now know to be completely false.

As far as banning goes, do what you've got to do.

People who compare the war on terror to WWII have absolutely no sense of perspective. It's like comparing a mosquito bite to a grizzly bear attack. Both draw blood but that's about as far as the analogy goes.

If the Axis powers had won WWII, we would have been at the mercy of the Japanese in terms of use of the Pacific Ocean. Germany might well have developed a means to deliver an atomic bomb to the United States long before we developed a means to deliver one to Germany. (Actually, the Germans were on the wrong track when it came to developing a bomb but they were way, way ahead of us in rocketry). Literally, the very existence of the United States could have been at risk.

Rather obviously, we're not going to stop pursuing terrorists nor should we. Furthermore, when we find them on foreign soil, we need to kill them rather than arrest them and bring them to trial. (If we catch them here, the rules change). But, what are their capabilities?

Well, they don't have a modern nation backing their activities so all activities have to be conducted clandestinely. They have absolutely no chance of actually making an atomic bomb. The physics are available from many books in your library but the engineering necessary to build a functioning device is way beyond the means of all but nation-states. First, you have to acquire the fissile material. They could probably do that. But, you then have to machine the material into a hollow sphere and the tolerances are within thousandths of an inch. Then, you need to put shaped charges around the hollow sphere to collapse the material. Again, the tolerances for these charges are to within thousandths of an inch. So, the physics is simple. The engineering is not. (Side quiz for any science buffs. How much matter is converted into energy in the explosion of a 10 megaton bomb)?

Their chances of acquiring sufficient chemical weapons to kill more than a few hundred people are slim and none and the reason is simple dispersal. Chemical agents released in an open area rapidly disperse and become non-lethal. You've either got to release them in an enclosed space or you've got to use a whole bunch of them at the same time. Notice that even in a subway system, about as closed as a system gets, the An-Shin Rykio (sp?) cult in Japan only managed to kill a few dozen people with their nerve gas.

Their chances of them acquiring biological agents are moderately good but their chances of weaponizing those agents are significantly less. For atomic weapons, the physics is simple but the engineering is incredibly difficult. For biological agents, the chemistry is simple but the engineering is, while not as difficult as that for an atomic weapon, more difficult than can be performed by any group not explicitly backed by the resources of a nation-state.

Truthfully, 9/11 was about the absolute worst they could possibly do and a repeat can be easily prevented through increased security measures.

Terrorists don't threaten the very existence of our nation. They don't threaten our way of life unless we willingly give up our freedoms in the name of "security." Unfortunately, history provides a lot of examples of people more than willing to do so. Hell, the threat of middle eastern terrorists and the bombing of the Reichstag allegedly by those middle eastern terrorists was how Hitler came to power.