What do you think of our current President?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

I really wish you would get a new hobby ..I really wish you were on here to write about WW2 and planes.

Huh? Everyone has an opinion, you may not agree with it...

Originally Posted by Haztoys

You know as much about American politics as I know about German politics ...And thats not much..Its funny I never really here any Americans say they "really" know about other countrys politics
:

Because the US President has an effect on people in other countries like no other leader influences things in the US....

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by freebird

I really wish you would get a new hobby ..I really wish you were on here to write about WW2 and planes.

Huh? Everyone has an opinion, you may not agree with it...



Because the US President has an effect on people in other countries like no other leader influences things in the US....[/quote]..But you real do not know what is going on in American Government..I do not care what your countrys news says is fact


Good Point on other countries and the US President.You are right...I did not think of it that way

But to grind home your point of view with facts that are not true gets old..I'm sure you would not be happy if I was telling you how the Canadian government is run and I was way off...

One thing "I" do know ...If you live half way around the world you really have know clue how another government works ...So why drive home your point of view from the propaganda your own news spits out about another country..When someone who lives in said country is telling you your wrong...

Opinions are fine ..But do your home work first ..And someone who live in said country knows more then you do about his own country...

Opinion and propaganda are not the same

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by JugBR

yes i can prove, pakistan is a country with many al qaeda members inside, they run for pakistan and back to afghanistan, crossing the borders easilly, sky news, cnn, even brazilian tv shows that, people buy a machinegun in the streets there. hardcore. portuguese television show that. of course the musharraf(its right ?) are friend of bush and pakistan shows some cooperation, but inside the country theres people who supports al qaeda everybody knows that.

and saudi arabia, rssssss what can i say about ? its a democratic free soceiety ! by the way, bin laden is from there. how he goes to afghanistan ? its a long story that everybody knows and involves the cia and the war against the soviet invasion of afghanistan.

No my question was can you prove that Iraq did not have terrorist ties. I do not think you can.

I have seen terrorist training camps in Iraq that were built years before we invaded Iraq. I do not believe they were built and funded by Sadam, but they were there.

The Leftist media does not show this do they?

So again, I ask you if you can prove that Iraq did not have terrorist ties?

Yes or No?

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No my question was can you prove that Iraq did not have terrorist ties. I do not think you can.

I have seen terrorist training camps in Iraq that were built years before we invaded Iraq. I do not believe they were built and funded by Sadam, but they were there.

The Leftist media does not show this do they?

So again, I ask you if you can prove that Iraq did not have terrorist ties?

Yes or No?

sure, because iraq was under UN sanctions and being monitored, also the country was very destroyed since gulf war.

you can prove that Iraq did have terrorist ties? and those was real terrorist training camps ? do you have pics of that ?

i am like saint thomas, must see to believe !

[Kruska]

Propaganda and an opinion based on facts and personal, professional experience are two very, very different stories Haztoys.

I have been in the German Army since 1981, in comparison to you I have been involved in major political – military developments involving the USA, Germany and dozens of other countries. I have been many years in your beautiful country and I like the American people. However American politics and its people are two very different aspects. And this differentiation applies to almost every other country.

I know and have experienced the effects of American politics upon Germany and its Army, such as on many countries in Asia. I do not need to reflect or draw my knowledge from newspaper articles in order to build my opinion.
If you or renrich (no offence meant) believe that any government (besides “partially” England) or certain newcomers in NATO respects or even agrees to the majority of the past US policy since 2001 you would be totally wrong not me.

As for the people in those respective countries you would be even more wrong, the major majority outside the US, despises or in other words rejects US policies and laughs about Bush. Which by the way, about 50% - 60% of your own countrymen do just as well.

Anyone who is not aware about person’s actions and involvements such as Cheney or Rumsfeld, not to mention others in Bush’s surrounding is either naïve, misinformed or blindly bound to the present republican course. As such these people IMO would be the victims of propaganda.

If for whatever reason you find other peoples opinions as not substantial or acceptable, prove your opinion or simply acknowledge others opinions, and refute from verbal abuse or accusations such as propaganda or out ruling others opinions just because they seem to be no Americans or knowledgeable of the respective topic to you.

There are a certain group of people on this forum whose participation is expressed and documented by simply forwarding single words of insult and degradation towards others, without ever proving something; like BS, propaganda, utter nonsense, who are you? Or at best trying to tell people in which topics or threads they should or should not participate.

Regards
Kruska

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by JugBR

sure, because iraq was under UN sanctions and being monitored, also the country was very destroyed since gulf war.

Those sanctions were a joke. France and Russia continued to sell weapons to Iraq during the sanctions. When we arrived at the Iraqi Airforce Base that we turned into our camp, we found plenty of French bombs still in French containers built only a year or two prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Besides sanctions do nothing to prevent terrorists...

As for the destroyed from the Gulf War, that proves nothing as well.

Originally Posted by JugBR

you can prove that Iraq did have terrorist ties? and those was real terrorist training camps ? do you have pics of that ?

No I do not have pics. You should know that on military operations you can not take pics of everything you see or do.

Originally Posted by JugBR

am like saint thomas, must see to believe !

Well you keep believing what you see on the media and keep your biased opinion.

So far you have given 0 proof that Iraq did not harbor terrorists. I am sure that if 1000 other people that were in Iraq like me were to tell you otherwise you would not believe them.

Trust me when I say I am making an unbiased decision on whether there were terrorists or not. I can say this because I do not agree with how this war was run either.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Propaganda and an opinion based on facts and personal, professional experience are two very, very different stories Haztoys.

I have been in the German Army since 1981, in comparison to you I have been involved in major political – military developments involving the USA, Germany and dozens of other countries. I have been many years in your beautiful country and I like the American people. However American politics and its people are two very different aspects. And this differentiation applies to almost every other country.

I know and have experienced the effects of American politics upon Germany and its Army, such as on many countries in Asia. I do not need to reflect or draw my knowledge from newspaper articles in order to build my opinion.
If you or renrich (no offence meant) believe that any government (besides “partially” England) or certain newcomers in NATO respects or even agrees to the majority of the past US policy since 2001 you would be totally wrong not me.

As for the people in those respective countries you would be even more wrong, the major majority outside the US, despises or in other words rejects US policies and laughs about Bush. Which by the way, about 50% - 60% of your own countrymen do just as well.

Anyone who is not aware about person’s actions and involvements such as Cheney or Rumsfeld, not to mention others in Bush’s surrounding is either naïve, misinformed or blindly bound to the present republican course. As such these people IMO would be the victims of propaganda.

If for whatever reason you find other peoples opinions as not substantial or acceptable, prove your opinion or simply acknowledge others opinions, and refute from verbal abuse or accusations such as propaganda or out ruling others opinions just because they seem to be no Americans or knowledgeable of the respective topic to you.

There are a certain group of people on this forum whose participation is expressed and documented by simply forwarding single words of insult and degradation towards others, without ever proving something; like BS, propaganda, utter nonsense, who are you? Or at best trying to tell people in which topics or threads they should or should not participate.

Regards
Kruska

Who is this post referred to? I hope it was not me. I have done nothing to insult you...

If it was please let me know, so we can end this problem you have right now.

[JugBR]

at least DerAdlerIstGelandet, you have being there and i believe as european and german you are less afected by bush propaganda. you and flyboy are guys who have opinion diferent of mine but i can recognize you are smart guys and not fanatic republicans.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Those sanctions were a joke. France and Russia continued to sell weapons to Iraq during the sanctions. When we arrived at the Iraqi Airforce Base that we turned into our camp, we found plenty of French bombs still in French containers built only a year or two prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


No I do not have pics. You should know that on military operations you can not take pics of everything you see or do.

With all due respect Adler, I'm calling BS on this one. Please show me where the French government openly sold arms to Saddam in violation of the arms embargo. Such accusations remind me of how in 2004, Conservative writer Bill Gertz wrote a scathing column (with a few ads for Ann Coulter books interspersed throughout) accusing the French and Germans of having secretly sold weapons up to a few months before the war. All of these accusations were without any proof whatsoever, but it didn't stop everyone from accepting it as fact and running with it, and thus the myth was born.

I would like to rermind you and others, that in 2004 the Poles attempted to do the same thing: The evidence was of the discovery of a few Roland surface-to-air missiles. The Poles immediately claimed they were recently manufactured and sold during the sanctions era. The claim was soon found to be a fabricated lie, for which the Polish officers maiking the claim were "retired" and the Polish government later apologized. The scandal was referred to at the time as "Roland-Gate".

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by JugBR

at least DerAdlerIstGelandet, you have being there and i believe as european and german you are less afected by bush propaganda. you and flyboy are guys who have opinion diferent of mine but i can recognize you are smart guys and not fanatic republicans.

I am an American and I tend to vote Republican...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

With all due respect Adler, I'm calling BS on this one. Please show me where the French government openly sold arms to Saddam in violation of the arms embargo. Such accusations remind me of how in 2004, Conservative writer Bill Gertz wrote a scathing column (with a few ads for Ann Coulter books interspersed throughout) accusing the French and Germans of having secretly sold weapons up to a few months before the war. All of these accusations were without any proof whatsoever, but it didn't stop everyone from accepting it as fact and running with it, and thus the myth was born.

I would like to rermind you and others, that in 2004 the Poles attempted to do the same thing: The evidence was of the discovery of a few Roland surface-to-air missiles. The Poles immediately claimed they were recently manufactured and sold during the sanctions era. The claim was soon found to be a fabricated lie, for which the Polish officers maiking the claim were "retired" and the Polish government later apologized. The scandal was referred to at the time as "Roland-Gate".

You need to let your bias for all things French stop clouding your judgement.

I will go through my pics and find the ones I took of French armaments dated 2001 and 2002.

The next time you come in here and start and insulting post, because I say something about the French (and mind you this was not an insulting post about the French), I will not be so nice to you.

If you have a differing opinion, that is fine, but dont let it get insulting. Do you got that mister?!

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by freebird

In WWII North Africa the original plan was to sweep away the Vichy government & military, and to bring in someone loyal to the Allies, {Giraud} and rely on the Free French. Instead the plan was a total flop, none of Vichy officails would cooperate. Eisenhower then within a week or two came up with an alternate plan. He has sometimes been critisized for his actions there, for using men of the former Vichy regime to control the area. I think he was 100% correct in what he did. He sent a telegram to Churchill & Roosevelt saying that he had taken this decision on his own initiative to prevent disorder & rebellion. If he had dismissed all of the Vichy Soldiers & officials {such as was done to the Bathists in Iraq} he would risk not only their rebellion, but also that of the large local Muslim population, already angry about food shortages. He also said "Ï have taken these measures to maintain security for the war effort, what happens after the war is up to you - the politicans - to decide".

Hi freebird! Sorry I couldn't respond earlier as much as I wanted to. I've been remodeling sections of my house, and so my entire library of books have been packed away. I'm only now able to access some of them.

I've wanted to respond to this as I thought it was very interesting to see someone mentioning Vichy france in North Africa during WW 2 in regards to Vietnam, A-stan, and Iraq.

First of all, I would like to remind you that the idea of allowing Vichy officers to continue running North Africa in terms of colonial mandate and administrations, was actually a French proposal, which (if I am not mistaken) was first proposed to General Patton. The arguement was of course, the old regime needed to maintain control of the populations if the Allies expected a smooth logistical operation in North Africa. It was Patton who thought highly of the plan that he offered it to Gen. Eisenhower who allowed it to be put into practise. Yes, I agree it was a very smart thing to do on Eisenhower's part.

As for introducing Gen. Giraud to the scene, this was perhaps the 2nd silliest idea the Allies had, one which originated via FDR with the help of Leahy and Murphy (the 1st stupid idea was to put Adm. Darlan in power). After the plan to put Adm. Darlan in power failed (Thank you, Bonnier de la Chappel), FDR was first and foremost adamant about ignoring Gen. de Gaulle, preffering a "yes" man like Giraud, who was IMO, a near-complete doofus. Giraud, whose only real claim to fame was a daring escape from a POW camp, had not the political nor military wisdom of running ex-Vichy North Africa, not to mention he was closely tied to many still in the Vichy Regime in France. Thank God, Churhil was able to recognize that Gen. de Gaulle could not be stuffed into a corner and ignored as FDR wanted. A "marriage of convenience" was made between Giraud and de Gaulle, but soon afterwards de Gaulle simply pushed the incompetent Giraud out of the way.

Of this, i'll finally say that everyone profoundly underestimated Gen. de Gaulle, in particular FDR. Even Eisenhower had the good sense to later ignore FDR's rants concerning the Free French leader. An excellent read on the matter is "Allies at War" by Simon Bertheon. Also an extremely good work on this matter of maintaining North Africa is "Army at Dawn" by Rick Atkinson.

Fast-forward to Iraq - I think most everyone at this point will agree that disbanding the Iraqi army was a horrible idea, and that ridding the all of the ex-Baathists officials was perhaps not smart either. It is no coincidence that the occupation began to unravel as it did shortly after these things happened. Unfortunately for Iraq, there was no natural leader to take up the spotlight. I can remember earlier in the war how some suggested that Chalabi ( the head of that "Free-Iraq" Lobby in the US) could be the one to lead in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Chalabi, to everyone's great embarassment, turned out to be an opportunists interested only in filling his pockets with reconstruction contact $$. Not only did he turn out to be very unqualified for the job he wished he could have, no one in Iraq trusted him, and worst of all, some of the erroneous information about Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion appeared to have originated from him. I don't think Chalabi had much interest in serving his people. He was willing to go with whatever flow there was to help himself, but not much else. As such, I would compare him with Adm. Darlan in terms of opportunism.

As for Malaki, I'm not entirely sure where I would have put him, but in terms of competency, I think he resembles much like Gen. Giraud. Malaki can only function with the backing of massive firepower (the US) to get his policies across. I'm not even sure if much of the Iraq people even trust him very much- many see him as a puppet. In short, without the US military and US government to prop him up, I doubt Malaki would live longer than 1-2 weeks at most.

Unfortunately, there is no De Gaulle for Iraq at this point. Worse still, unlike France with it's political divisions, Iraq finds itself with massive ethnic divisions and at times it seems the country will rip itself apart despite all efforts by the US/UK/others to prevent it (some say this may eventually be needed, I'm not so sure at this time).

So, who could have been used to help the Iraqis rise to the occassion? I'm not sure if there was anyone. What was needed, as soon as Saddam had fallen, was an immediate change of power and not a vacuum. If there was one person I think who could have done this, I believe it could have been Tariq Aziz, Saddam's ex-Foreign Minister. Sure, the guy was no doubt a crook and a criminal, but there were rumors just before the war began that he might defect. Given his diplomatic connections and his political knowledge, I think he could have succesfully held the reins of power, at least for a short while - long enough to provide some sort of stability in the country in the aftermath of the invasion. I believe Aziz had perhaps the greatest opportunity in the world to change Iraq (and himself), but he blew it. However, once he blew it, the opportunity should have been made to him anyway, despite his record of a criminal under Saddam. I would simply be willing to bet that the Iraqis would be less knowledgable of Aziz's criminal past, than say the pasts of Saddam and his two sons, or "Chemical Ali" and etc.

The bad thing is now, we are facing a natural leader of a different kind, one who is working to tear the country apart and cause the occupational forces no end of headaches, and that is Al-Sadr.

There is no doubt in my mind that in 2003, the US should have looked back at North Africa in 1942 to find several object lessons to learn from vis-a-vis Iraq today. Instead, the Pentagon chose to look at the French conflict in Algeria, ostensibly to prevent becoming trapped in a protracted war against guerillas, incredibly silly given we only needed to look at our nightmare involement in Vietnam for this horrible experience. In all of these three cases, the Pentagon failed to learn much of anything. Thank you Rumsfeld.

Always good to debate with you freebird!

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Who is this post referred to? I hope it was not me. I have done nothing to insult you...

If it was please let me know, so we can end this problem you have right now.

Hello D.A.I.G.,

No don't worry, this post was not directed to you at all. As mentioned in the text is was specifically meant for Haztoys and Co.

Arsenal VG-33 and D.A.I.G.

French bombs in Iraq, D.A.I.G you forgot to mention the 6000 15A2C

You can be dead sure that no weapons or technology was delivered with the knowledge or approval by the French and German government.
There are procedures such as an export allowance and approval requisition for anything that needs to be exported. Especially to countries which are on an Embargo list. It also includes a 3rd party statement in regards to illegal transactions on behalf of the 2nd Party.

However as you know very well, there are thousands of so called “contractors to the DoD” on this planet who are partially very skilled and ruthless when it comes to illegal transactions of military or listed embargo materials through 3rd party channels.

As for terrorist training camps in Iraq: Off course Iraq had maintained several of these training camps, however a direct link to training Al Qaida has not been proven. Almost every country maintains these kinds of camps, incl. the USA. The significant difference is that those people trained in Western countries are called Freedom fighters or insurgents for the “good” cause. The opposing side will prefer to call them terrorists.

A very prominent figure trained in these Western Camps is O. bin Laden and several of his followers, as well as the majority of Iraq’s - Mukhabarat -former secret service.

Regards
Kruska

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You need to let your bias for all things French stop clouding your judgement.

I will go through my pics and find the ones I took of French armaments dated 2001 and 2002.

The next time you come in here and start and insulting post, because I say something about the French (and mind you this was not an insulting post about the French), I will not be so nice to you.

If you have a differing opinion, that is fine, but dont let it get insulting. Do you got that mister?!

Adler, you may be very upset to see me here, you're feeling towards me are well known, but where was I insulting??? I questioned the veracity of your statement and that makes me insulting?? I asked for proof of your statement.

"With all due respect Adler" - That's not an insult. It a preface to what I believe to be a very dubious claim. Nice to know I'm no longer afforded the right of an opinion.