US and Haiti
blindside.AMG
03-01-2004, 02:06 AM
No surprise here. The US is first to react so the rest of the world can sit around with their thumbs up their asses deciding what to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4416174/
Marines arrived in the Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince on Sunday night as the vanguard of an international security force, and the Pentagon said their mission included providing humanitarian assistance and protecting Americans.
The first contingent totaled fewer than 100 Marines and arrived by air, officials said, although the exact number was not disclosed.
“The plane has arrived,” said Navy Petty Officer Christopher Sherwood, a spokesman at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which is running the U.S. military operation in Haiti.
More were to arrive on Monday, one senior defense official said on condition of anonymity.
The Marines’ mission was five-fold, the defense official said.
To contribute to a secure environment in the capital, Port-Au-Prince, and to promote a constitutional political process in the wake of the resignation Sunday of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
To assist in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean nation.
To protect U.S. citizens in Haiti, as needed.
To facilitate the repatriation of Haitian migrants, who are aboard U.S. Coast Guard vessels.
To create the right condition for the anticipated arrival of a multinational security force.
In New York, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously late Sunday to approve an international military force for three months to restore order in Haiti.
Officials at the Pentagon and at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which is running the Haiti operation, said it was not immediately clear whether the Marines had arrived in Port-Au-Prince. They said they were due to arrive before midnight.
The Marines assembled an “air-ground task force” of several hundred troops, built around elements of an infantry battalion based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. The decision to send them by air rather than a slower sea deployment was made after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled Haiti.
Officials said the administration aimed to organize the international security force under auspices of the Caribbean Community, a regional institution.
One of the Marine task force’s first missions was to help the U.S. Coast Guard repatriate Haitian migrants who are about Coast Guard vessels. The task force has the flexibility to switch from humanitarian to security missions, according to several defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The task force being sent was likely to eventually number at least a few hundred Marines from Camp Lejeune, where an infantry battalion is always on alert for potential short-notice deployments. They are in addition to 50 members of a Marine anti-terrorism security team that has been in Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital, for several days to help secure the U.S. Embassy.
In his brief statement from the South Lawn of the White House, Bush provided no details of the deployment other than that the Marines would “help bring order and stability to Haiti.”
Bush spoke several hours after Aristide resigned and was flown out of the country to an undisclosed destination. It was not clear what role if any the U.S. military played in getting Aristide out of Haiti.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in an earlier statement that several other countries “are prepared to move quickly to join” an international security force for Haiti, but he mentioned none by name.
The Marines were chosen for the Haiti mission in large part because they provide a flexible force that can move quickly and bring a variety of assets with them, including ground combat power, air power and the supplies to sustain them for a period of time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4416174/
Marines arrived in the Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince on Sunday night as the vanguard of an international security force, and the Pentagon said their mission included providing humanitarian assistance and protecting Americans.
The first contingent totaled fewer than 100 Marines and arrived by air, officials said, although the exact number was not disclosed.
“The plane has arrived,” said Navy Petty Officer Christopher Sherwood, a spokesman at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which is running the U.S. military operation in Haiti.
More were to arrive on Monday, one senior defense official said on condition of anonymity.
The Marines’ mission was five-fold, the defense official said.
To contribute to a secure environment in the capital, Port-Au-Prince, and to promote a constitutional political process in the wake of the resignation Sunday of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
To assist in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean nation.
To protect U.S. citizens in Haiti, as needed.
To facilitate the repatriation of Haitian migrants, who are aboard U.S. Coast Guard vessels.
To create the right condition for the anticipated arrival of a multinational security force.
In New York, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously late Sunday to approve an international military force for three months to restore order in Haiti.
Officials at the Pentagon and at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which is running the Haiti operation, said it was not immediately clear whether the Marines had arrived in Port-Au-Prince. They said they were due to arrive before midnight.
The Marines assembled an “air-ground task force” of several hundred troops, built around elements of an infantry battalion based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. The decision to send them by air rather than a slower sea deployment was made after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled Haiti.
Officials said the administration aimed to organize the international security force under auspices of the Caribbean Community, a regional institution.
One of the Marine task force’s first missions was to help the U.S. Coast Guard repatriate Haitian migrants who are about Coast Guard vessels. The task force has the flexibility to switch from humanitarian to security missions, according to several defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The task force being sent was likely to eventually number at least a few hundred Marines from Camp Lejeune, where an infantry battalion is always on alert for potential short-notice deployments. They are in addition to 50 members of a Marine anti-terrorism security team that has been in Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital, for several days to help secure the U.S. Embassy.
In his brief statement from the South Lawn of the White House, Bush provided no details of the deployment other than that the Marines would “help bring order and stability to Haiti.”
Bush spoke several hours after Aristide resigned and was flown out of the country to an undisclosed destination. It was not clear what role if any the U.S. military played in getting Aristide out of Haiti.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in an earlier statement that several other countries “are prepared to move quickly to join” an international security force for Haiti, but he mentioned none by name.
The Marines were chosen for the Haiti mission in large part because they provide a flexible force that can move quickly and bring a variety of assets with them, including ground combat power, air power and the supplies to sustain them for a period of time.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-01-2004, 03:27 AM
seeing as the rest of the world is alot further away from Haiti than the US you can tell who's going to get there first. Another thing - Its a multinational (UN) force thats going to be deployed there the Marines just happened to get there first.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3520945.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3520945.stm
taranaki
03-01-2004, 03:30 AM
Actually,it was the Canadians who arrived first,and secured the main airport at Port-au-prince.Please,bone up on some facts before making yourself look foolish.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-01-2004, 03:33 AM
Actually,it was the Canadians who arrived first,and secured the main airport at Port-au-prince.Please,bone up on some facts before making yourself look foolish.
if the canadians were first that shows up the americans doesn't it? It shows that the American's aren't that fast in reacting though they probably had to think of their self interest's first
if the canadians were first that shows up the americans doesn't it? It shows that the American's aren't that fast in reacting though they probably had to think of their self interest's first
YogsVR4
03-01-2004, 09:06 AM
How does it make the US look stupid?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
TexasF355F1
03-01-2004, 09:38 AM
How does it make the US look stupid?
I do see how either. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I do see how either. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
freakray
03-01-2004, 10:57 AM
Maybe the rest of the world likes to leave countries alone to settle their own problems whereas the USA likes to play 'policeman of the world'?
Just tossing a thought out.
Just tossing a thought out.
TexasF355F1
03-01-2004, 01:10 PM
Maybe the rest of the world likes to leave countries alone to settle their own problems whereas the USA likes to play 'policeman of the world'?
Just tossing a thought out.
That's what I mean by the U.S. being damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we didn't go there everyone would ask us to. And now that we are there no one wants us there.
Just tossing a thought out.
That's what I mean by the U.S. being damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we didn't go there everyone would ask us to. And now that we are there no one wants us there.
taranaki
03-01-2004, 02:02 PM
Can't see anyone taking that line...I'm certain that in a situation where a power vaccuum and chaos exists,anyone would welcom the US as a participant in a genuine international humanitarian effort.
blindside.AMG
03-01-2004, 07:45 PM
That's what I mean by the U.S. being damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we didn't go there everyone would ask us to. And now that we are there no one wants us there.
That's just how it's going to be for a long time. According to other countries the US won't be able to do anything right for a long time.
Check this out:
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated that 1,500 to 2,000 U.S. troops would go to Haiti for a “relatively short period.” They would participate in an interim force, which could include as many as 5,000 troops from several countries, that would stay until replaced by the U.N. force."
US supplies 30% of the troops. Thanks, rest of the world, for your below par effort. I can hear the arguement now, "...but the US has such a huge military.................................."
That's just how it's going to be for a long time. According to other countries the US won't be able to do anything right for a long time.
Check this out:
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated that 1,500 to 2,000 U.S. troops would go to Haiti for a “relatively short period.” They would participate in an interim force, which could include as many as 5,000 troops from several countries, that would stay until replaced by the U.N. force."
US supplies 30% of the troops. Thanks, rest of the world, for your below par effort. I can hear the arguement now, "...but the US has such a huge military.................................."
Cbass
03-01-2004, 09:47 PM
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated that 1,500 to 2,000 U.S. troops would go to Haiti for a “relatively short period.”
After which, they will promptly return to Iraq to be shot at.
After which, they will promptly return to Iraq to be shot at.
taranaki
03-02-2004, 01:16 AM
US supplies 30% of the troops. Thanks, rest of the world, for your below par effort. I can hear the arguement now, "...but the US has such a huge military.................................."
Since the U.S.stands to lose most if the place turns to shit,it's a pragmatic move.The prospect of boatloads of Haitians fleeing to try and sneak into the U.S. is the alternative.
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
Since the U.S.stands to lose most if the place turns to shit,it's a pragmatic move.The prospect of boatloads of Haitians fleeing to try and sneak into the U.S. is the alternative.
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
Toksin
03-02-2004, 04:07 AM
Since the U.S.stands to lose most if the place turns to shit,it's a pragmatic move.The prospect of boatloads of Haitians fleeing to try and sneak into the U.S. is the alternative.
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
Way to take the words right out of my mouth :bigthumb:
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
Way to take the words right out of my mouth :bigthumb:
broddie50
03-02-2004, 04:52 AM
It's just this simple. If the U.S. left everything to everybody else, would you be able to have a free voice to voice your opinon's? Uhhh, no. I'm not saying you have to like Bush, shit I don't like him either, but as long as we remain the lone superpower in the world, I'm rather comfortable over here... The last 60 years the U.S. has been a provider, policeman, and a healer to the rest of the world. Hey, call the "powers that be" bullies, but for the most part, an "American" IS NOT. Sometimes it's the REST of the world that forgets who jumped in and made a difference...
T4 Primera
03-02-2004, 04:59 AM
It's just this simple. If the U.S. left everything to everybody else, would you be able to have a free voice to voice your opinon's? Uhhh, no. I'm not saying you have to like Bush, shit I don't like him either, but as long as we remain the lone superpower in the world, I'm rather comfortable over here... The last 60 years the U.S. has been a provider, policeman, and a healer to the rest of the world. Hey, call the "powers that be" bullies, but for the most part, an "American" IS NOT. Sometimes it's the REST of the world that forgets who jumped in and made a difference...
Just what specifically do you think it is that the rest of the world should be grateful for?
Lone superpower? How do you figure that?
Just what specifically do you think it is that the rest of the world should be grateful for?
Lone superpower? How do you figure that?
DGB454
03-02-2004, 05:26 AM
Well...at the moment there is no other super power as far as the military is concerned. There was 2 but USSR fell apart.
The rest I won't comment on.
The rest I won't comment on.
broddie50
03-02-2004, 05:28 AM
I'm not going to get into details... Just be glad your not speaking a "slangwesh" version of german right now... Chow!
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-02-2004, 07:44 AM
Since the U.S.stands to lose most if the place turns to shit,it's a pragmatic move.The prospect of boatloads of Haitians fleeing to try and sneak into the U.S. is the alternative.
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
spot on :bigthumb:
The last post i made isn't very clear. Its also not going to get anything near clear. Though i will say that Blindside looks a bit dumb because of it.
30% of 100,000 is 30,000 right? UN has thus put up 70,000 troops thats not bad considering the Armies within the UN are alot smaller than that of the US
also UN does not constitute the term the rest of the world.
Another point.Idon't see the US rushing to help in countries where there is little or no benefit to Uncle Sam.I don't have a problem with that at all,but when people like blindside start whining about the rest of us following the U.S example,it's a bit rich.
spot on :bigthumb:
The last post i made isn't very clear. Its also not going to get anything near clear. Though i will say that Blindside looks a bit dumb because of it.
30% of 100,000 is 30,000 right? UN has thus put up 70,000 troops thats not bad considering the Armies within the UN are alot smaller than that of the US
also UN does not constitute the term the rest of the world.
YogsVR4
03-02-2004, 08:42 AM
spot on :bigthumb:
The last post i made isn't very clear. Its also not going to get anything near clear. Though i will say that Blindside looks a bit dumb because of it.
30% of 100,000 is 30,000 right? UN has thus put up 70,000 troops thats not bad considering the Armies within the UN are alot smaller than that of the US
also UN does not constitute the term the rest of the world.
That doesn't make any sense. The UN has no armies. They are composed of the contries that commit troops to it which (unfortunately) the US is part of.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The last post i made isn't very clear. Its also not going to get anything near clear. Though i will say that Blindside looks a bit dumb because of it.
30% of 100,000 is 30,000 right? UN has thus put up 70,000 troops thats not bad considering the Armies within the UN are alot smaller than that of the US
also UN does not constitute the term the rest of the world.
That doesn't make any sense. The UN has no armies. They are composed of the contries that commit troops to it which (unfortunately) the US is part of.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
T4 Primera
03-02-2004, 01:57 PM
I'm not going to get into details... Just be glad your not speaking a "slangwesh" version of german right now... Chow!
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
The turning point of WWII was when Hitler made the mistake of taking on Russia - not the entry of the US. BTW, the US did very well financially out of that war for a long time before they finally invited themselves in (by inviting Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour).
Do you really think UK, Russia and China are not capable of that militarily? Have you ever heard of a SSN22 Sunburn or SSN25 Onyx? Just because other countries don't project themselves doesn't mean that they are not capable.
What else you got to back up your empty rhetoric?
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
The turning point of WWII was when Hitler made the mistake of taking on Russia - not the entry of the US. BTW, the US did very well financially out of that war for a long time before they finally invited themselves in (by inviting Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour).
Do you really think UK, Russia and China are not capable of that militarily? Have you ever heard of a SSN22 Sunburn or SSN25 Onyx? Just because other countries don't project themselves doesn't mean that they are not capable.
What else you got to back up your empty rhetoric?
YogsVR4
03-02-2004, 02:56 PM
The turning point of WWII was when Hitler made the mistake of taking on Russia - not the entry of the US. BTW, the US did very well financially out of that war for a long time before they finally invited themselves in (by inviting Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour).
Do you really think UK, Russia and China are not capable of that militarily? Have you ever heard of a SSN22 Sunburn or SSN25 Onyx? Just because other countries don't project themselves doesn't mean that they are not capable.
What else you got to back up your empty rhetoric?
Actually - you are wrong.
The US never 'invited' Japan to bomb pearl harbor but you're free to start another thread to back up your empty rhetoric.
China cannot launch an offensive in another hemisphere (which is what he said). They cannot even launch one into Taiwan if they wanted to.
Russia has not maintained its amphibious fleet to project force anywere that is surrounded by water. They concentrate on ground and air forces. Similar to China but China wants what Russia is letting rust away.
I can't speak as to the UKs abilities. I don't know quite enough about their services. But in anycase, you must have a different definition of force projection then I do. Just because you can move three guys with guns someplace doesn't mean you can project force.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Do you really think UK, Russia and China are not capable of that militarily? Have you ever heard of a SSN22 Sunburn or SSN25 Onyx? Just because other countries don't project themselves doesn't mean that they are not capable.
What else you got to back up your empty rhetoric?
Actually - you are wrong.
The US never 'invited' Japan to bomb pearl harbor but you're free to start another thread to back up your empty rhetoric.
China cannot launch an offensive in another hemisphere (which is what he said). They cannot even launch one into Taiwan if they wanted to.
Russia has not maintained its amphibious fleet to project force anywere that is surrounded by water. They concentrate on ground and air forces. Similar to China but China wants what Russia is letting rust away.
I can't speak as to the UKs abilities. I don't know quite enough about their services. But in anycase, you must have a different definition of force projection then I do. Just because you can move three guys with guns someplace doesn't mean you can project force.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
broddie50
03-02-2004, 03:06 PM
T4, anybody with ballistic missile capability can project mega death force... That's not what I meant by projecting force. Having the 7th fleet in the balkians (sp) is more along the lines of projecting force in my mind...
T4 Primera
03-02-2004, 04:14 PM
Actually - you are wrong.
The US never 'invited' Japan to bomb pearl harbor but you're free to start another thread to back up your empty rhetoric..
When the US blockaded all of Japans supply routes, then positioned a large portion of the fleet at Pearl Harbour while the cream of the fleet was elsewhere, how else would you expect them to react?
You are right, that's a completely different debate that detracts from this thread - as do statements people make as fact that are, at best, highly disputable.
China cannot launch an offensive in another hemisphere (which is what he said). They cannot even launch one into Taiwan if they wanted to.
Russia has not maintained its amphibious fleet to project force anywere that is surrounded by water. They concentrate on ground and air forces. Similar to China but China wants what Russia is letting rust away.
I can't speak as to the UKs abilities. I don't know quite enough about their services. But in anycase, you must have a different definition of force projection then I do. Just because you can move three guys with guns someplace doesn't mean you can project force.
Russia, China and India have been carrying out joint naval exercises (including amphibious capabilities) in the Indian ocean since the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
Both the Russian and Chinese vessels are equipped with Sunburn missiles (cruising altitude 60 feet) for which there is currently no effective defense. This year they are being replaced by - the Onyx (cruising altitude 45 feet). It's much faster and capable sinking an aircraft carrier with only a conventional warhead by virtue of it's mass (5500pounds) and sheer velocity (Mach 2.9). If the aircraft carriers can be destroyed without escalating to nuclear weapons, then the whole tactical situation becomes very different.
Both missiles can be launched from flatbed truck, sea or from fighter/bombers which makes them very mobile and easy to conceal. In fact, the US navy approached the manufacturer of these missiles and the Russian government asking if they could purchase some for research.
Anyone want to guess where else these missiles are currently deployed?
Too many people consider the US the lone superpower because the statement has been made so often in the press. The actual capabilities of other countries say otherwise.
Again, just because another country hasn't done something does not mean they are not capable of doing it, or even that they would use the same methods to achieve their objectives.
It's not my intention to detract from the topic, but I don't want to let disputable statements go unchallenged.
The US never 'invited' Japan to bomb pearl harbor but you're free to start another thread to back up your empty rhetoric..
When the US blockaded all of Japans supply routes, then positioned a large portion of the fleet at Pearl Harbour while the cream of the fleet was elsewhere, how else would you expect them to react?
You are right, that's a completely different debate that detracts from this thread - as do statements people make as fact that are, at best, highly disputable.
China cannot launch an offensive in another hemisphere (which is what he said). They cannot even launch one into Taiwan if they wanted to.
Russia has not maintained its amphibious fleet to project force anywere that is surrounded by water. They concentrate on ground and air forces. Similar to China but China wants what Russia is letting rust away.
I can't speak as to the UKs abilities. I don't know quite enough about their services. But in anycase, you must have a different definition of force projection then I do. Just because you can move three guys with guns someplace doesn't mean you can project force.
Russia, China and India have been carrying out joint naval exercises (including amphibious capabilities) in the Indian ocean since the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
Both the Russian and Chinese vessels are equipped with Sunburn missiles (cruising altitude 60 feet) for which there is currently no effective defense. This year they are being replaced by - the Onyx (cruising altitude 45 feet). It's much faster and capable sinking an aircraft carrier with only a conventional warhead by virtue of it's mass (5500pounds) and sheer velocity (Mach 2.9). If the aircraft carriers can be destroyed without escalating to nuclear weapons, then the whole tactical situation becomes very different.
Both missiles can be launched from flatbed truck, sea or from fighter/bombers which makes them very mobile and easy to conceal. In fact, the US navy approached the manufacturer of these missiles and the Russian government asking if they could purchase some for research.
Anyone want to guess where else these missiles are currently deployed?
Too many people consider the US the lone superpower because the statement has been made so often in the press. The actual capabilities of other countries say otherwise.
Again, just because another country hasn't done something does not mean they are not capable of doing it, or even that they would use the same methods to achieve their objectives.
It's not my intention to detract from the topic, but I don't want to let disputable statements go unchallenged.
Pick
03-02-2004, 05:33 PM
What the fuck is people's problems with America? We watch our asses and watch 100 other countries asses, and no one appreciates us. Just because we do what's best in the interest of our country we are selfish, power-hungry turds? I'm glad we do what's best for us, or else I'd be drinking tea with Prince Harry or saluting the Nazi flag.
freakray
03-02-2004, 05:49 PM
I'm not going to get into details... Just be glad your not speaking a "slangwesh" version of german right now... Chow!
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
Oh great, another American who believes the US single-handedly won WW2.
I don't know about 'project military strength', it's more like 'oppress other countries in a different hemisphere'.
BTW, bitch all you want, I live in America and have citizenship, can't cry about the people from the other countries when it comes to me.
By superpower, the only country that can project it's military strength over another in a different hemisphere...
Oh great, another American who believes the US single-handedly won WW2.
I don't know about 'project military strength', it's more like 'oppress other countries in a different hemisphere'.
BTW, bitch all you want, I live in America and have citizenship, can't cry about the people from the other countries when it comes to me.
broddie50
03-02-2004, 11:17 PM
Did I say single handily at all in my post? No, I did not. But without U.S. involvement, the Germans would have basically only a one front war to fight, that being with Russia, which would have fallen. The Brits and France were doing a great job fending for themselves by the way....
taranaki
03-03-2004, 02:26 AM
what the fuck has this got to do with Haiti?
[apart from being just another opportunity for the blinkered Sammites to chant their mantra]
[apart from being just another opportunity for the blinkered Sammites to chant their mantra]
T4 Primera
03-03-2004, 03:43 AM
No surprise here. The US is first to react so the rest of the world can sit around with their thumbs up their asses deciding what to do.
Taranaki,
It has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with the attitude displayed in the opening sentence of the thread - which was subsequently backed up with more fallacies.
Taranaki,
It has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with the attitude displayed in the opening sentence of the thread - which was subsequently backed up with more fallacies.
T4 Primera
03-03-2004, 03:51 AM
What the fuck is people's problems with America? We watch our asses and watch 100 other countries asses, and no one appreciates us. Just because we do what's best in the interest of our country we are selfish, power-hungry turds? I'm glad we do what's best for us, or else I'd be drinking tea with Prince Harry or saluting the Nazi flag.
The problem is that what you think is happening and what I think is happening are 2 very different things.
No-one begrudges doing what is in ones self interests, unless it is at the expense of others - and there lies the rub.
The problem is that what you think is happening and what I think is happening are 2 very different things.
No-one begrudges doing what is in ones self interests, unless it is at the expense of others - and there lies the rub.
Toksin
03-03-2004, 05:16 AM
Did I say single handily at all in my post? No, I did not. But without U.S. involvement, the Germans would have basically only a one front war to fight, that being with Russia, which would have fallen. The Brits and France were doing a great job fending for themselves by the way....
What the fuck are you smoking? Russia turned the Germans back at the gates of Moscow, and it was full steam ahead to Berlin from there, with no help from anyone else. Germany made the mistake of charging headlong into Russia without proper support, they ended up having their crack SS troops freezing in the snow still wearing their summer khakis. Had the US not go involved, Russia would have steamrolled all the way to the west coast anyway, it just would have taken longer. Britain did fine, ever hear of the Battle of Britain? Or did they leave that out of the history books?
As for France, well, shit happens.
Open your eyes, stop believing this US is this great thing that can do no wrong. You didn't win WW2, you helped. Everybody else was dying long before your country decided to get its hands dirty. The US is getting involved in Haiti because it's right on its back door. Why aren't they involved in Uganda? Rwanda? Somalia? Congo? Sierra Leone? Zimbabwe?
What the fuck are you smoking? Russia turned the Germans back at the gates of Moscow, and it was full steam ahead to Berlin from there, with no help from anyone else. Germany made the mistake of charging headlong into Russia without proper support, they ended up having their crack SS troops freezing in the snow still wearing their summer khakis. Had the US not go involved, Russia would have steamrolled all the way to the west coast anyway, it just would have taken longer. Britain did fine, ever hear of the Battle of Britain? Or did they leave that out of the history books?
As for France, well, shit happens.
Open your eyes, stop believing this US is this great thing that can do no wrong. You didn't win WW2, you helped. Everybody else was dying long before your country decided to get its hands dirty. The US is getting involved in Haiti because it's right on its back door. Why aren't they involved in Uganda? Rwanda? Somalia? Congo? Sierra Leone? Zimbabwe?
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-03-2004, 05:32 AM
That doesn't make any sense. The UN has no armies. They are composed of the contries that commit troops to it which (unfortunately) the US is part of.
rapid reaction force is going to be UN governed. And the troops involved that are from different countries do wear blue helmets with UN written on them. Or didn't you notice that. You're picking on pointless specifics by UN army i meant the forces put forward by UN countries and if the us is 30% of that the rest is from europe.
rapid reaction force is going to be UN governed. And the troops involved that are from different countries do wear blue helmets with UN written on them. Or didn't you notice that. You're picking on pointless specifics by UN army i meant the forces put forward by UN countries and if the us is 30% of that the rest is from europe.
freakray
03-03-2004, 06:37 AM
Did I say single handily at all in my post? No, I did not. But without U.S. involvement, the Germans would have basically only a one front war to fight, that being with Russia, which would have fallen. The Brits and France were doing a great job fending for themselves by the way....
You should stop posting, you're only making yourself look worse every line you type.
France was fending for itself?
It was occupied by Germany, do you call that fending for itself?
Russia would have fallen?
What, once Hitler thawed his starving troops out?
Once Hitler's armored divisions found a way around the T34's armor?
Get real....
Britain was holding Germany off, that was all.
You should stop posting, you're only making yourself look worse every line you type.
France was fending for itself?
It was occupied by Germany, do you call that fending for itself?
Russia would have fallen?
What, once Hitler thawed his starving troops out?
Once Hitler's armored divisions found a way around the T34's armor?
Get real....
Britain was holding Germany off, that was all.
broddie50
03-03-2004, 02:54 PM
I guess your to dim to actually read what I said and read into the SARCASM in the statement I made about the France and the Brits... Russia stopped the Germans at the front steps of Moscow because the Germans were fighting a TWO FRONT WAR AT THE TIME because of U.S. involvement in Europe. No U.S. involvement means the Germans would have more troops, supplies, and armor to throw at the Russians instead of having to fight on two fronts, focusing only on its (Germanys) eastern flank. On the Hati issue, hey if somebody doesn't do something, that country is going to tear itself apart...
freakray
03-03-2004, 03:37 PM
Germany was not fighting a 2 front war at the time it invaded Russia, that is the reason they invaded Russia, Hitler felt he had enough control in Europe to be able to focus his best troops on the Russian front, he failed for the same reason Napolean failed.
Neither Napolean nor Hitler anticipated the severity of Russia's winters or the stubborn fight of the Russian army.
America was not yet in the war when Hitler sent his troops against the Russians. America entered the war in December 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, that's six months before the US entered the war.
The Russians then stopped the onslaught of the German army in Feb 1943.
Incidentally, the turning point in North Africa coincided with the turning point in Russia, the Russian counter-offensive started shortly after the Allied counter-offensive in North Africa started in Morocco.
In the meantime, US forces had been concentrated against the Japanese, not the Germans, in fact, for nearly the entire duration of the Russian invasion the US forces had been focussed anywhere but Europe.
In fact, it was late 1943 before the US started to commit any sizable force to the European theatre with the British and American invasion of Africa and Southern Italy.
Anyway, enough of my history lesson, I am sure you understand now the point I am trying to get across.
I apologise for the off-topic nature of my post.
Neither Napolean nor Hitler anticipated the severity of Russia's winters or the stubborn fight of the Russian army.
America was not yet in the war when Hitler sent his troops against the Russians. America entered the war in December 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, that's six months before the US entered the war.
The Russians then stopped the onslaught of the German army in Feb 1943.
Incidentally, the turning point in North Africa coincided with the turning point in Russia, the Russian counter-offensive started shortly after the Allied counter-offensive in North Africa started in Morocco.
In the meantime, US forces had been concentrated against the Japanese, not the Germans, in fact, for nearly the entire duration of the Russian invasion the US forces had been focussed anywhere but Europe.
In fact, it was late 1943 before the US started to commit any sizable force to the European theatre with the British and American invasion of Africa and Southern Italy.
Anyway, enough of my history lesson, I am sure you understand now the point I am trying to get across.
I apologise for the off-topic nature of my post.
DVS LT1
03-03-2004, 11:40 PM
Actually,it was the Canadians who arrived first,and secured the main airport at Port-au-prince...
Eh! We're doing something and helping out. Alright! :cheers:
I'd like to think Canada will do its part in Haiti but sadly its not going to be much. With the Canadian Forces as hurting as they are its no surprise our Prime Minister announced that Canada will be unable to contribute the support it very much would like to (and should).
The only fucking reason our special forces were sent in first is selfishly because there are a very large number of Canadian citizens working as missionaries and relief workers in Haiti, and Ottawa needed to get them out safely - probably because these same people are going to be able to contribute more in the long run than our bloody military can!
In case you want a laugh...
http://www.hispeed.rogers.com/news/national/story.jsp?cid=n03039A
I think its a disgrace.
Eh! We're doing something and helping out. Alright! :cheers:
I'd like to think Canada will do its part in Haiti but sadly its not going to be much. With the Canadian Forces as hurting as they are its no surprise our Prime Minister announced that Canada will be unable to contribute the support it very much would like to (and should).
The only fucking reason our special forces were sent in first is selfishly because there are a very large number of Canadian citizens working as missionaries and relief workers in Haiti, and Ottawa needed to get them out safely - probably because these same people are going to be able to contribute more in the long run than our bloody military can!
In case you want a laugh...
http://www.hispeed.rogers.com/news/national/story.jsp?cid=n03039A
I think its a disgrace.
DVS LT1
03-04-2004, 12:49 AM
What the fuck are you smoking? Russia turned the Germans back at the gates of Moscow, and it was full steam ahead to Berlin from there, with no help from anyone else. Germany made the mistake of charging headlong into Russia without proper support, they ended up having their crack SS troops freezing in the snow still wearing their summer khakis. Had the US not go involved, Russia would have steamrolled all the way to the west coast anyway, it just would have taken longer. Britain did fine, ever hear of the Battle of Britain? Or did they leave that out of the history books?
Since my undergraduate studies have popped up I thought I'd contribute...
Attacking Russia when he did was indeed Hittler's biggest mistake, period. Even if the Germans had captured Moscow in the summer of 1941, they still would have been fucked.
Before the German offensive, Stalin had been preparing Russia for a war against the Capitalists by 1942. Yes, the Russian's were taken off-guard by nearly 3 million experienced German troops in late June 1941, but the fact is Stalin had tens or millions of troops (or people who would be forced to become troops) way the hell out in the Siberian frontier. He figured it would have taken until at least mid 1942 to transport all those troops to Western Russia anyways, which is what he had started to do prior to the German invasion.
As for the German's, the funny truth is that Hittler himself was a lousy military strategist. He was too egocentric and impatient (like a little kid really). Some of what Toskin mentioned is true - beginning the campaign in late June was too late to capture Moscow before winter. Although his troops were very well equiped going into Russia, Hittler became so pissed he would have to wait until Spring 1942 to restart the campaign that he let his men freeze and starve as a lesson. Great morale booster. Hittler was also the man who instructed the earth behind the German troops be scortched as they penetrated into Russia. Great foresight. Fact is he wanted Moscow immediately and didn't give a shit about anything else.
Unless Stalin were killed in or leaving Moscow the Germans were doomed on the western front no matter what. Stalin would have fled Moscow had it fallen to regroup his troops and return with hell to pay. The guy had a bloody armoured train he rolled around in - there's no way the German's would have pinched him leaving Moscow.
As for Britain, they had Canada's seemingly endless supply of resources behind them from day one. Although a relatively small number of Canadian troops went overseas compared to the US contribution, I can proudly say that the overwhelming majority of Canadian men fit for military service enlisted in the armed forces the went overseas the instant war broke out in the Britain. Canada's greatest contribution to the Allies was its resources in metal, fuel, munitions, and naval warships. I remember reading once that Canada built something like 20 ships for the British navy during WWII.
We had some of the best soldiers back then and we still do today. Its such a damn shame that our government and citizens don't respect what our armed forces do for us. This country has been resting on its glory far too long...
Since my undergraduate studies have popped up I thought I'd contribute...
Attacking Russia when he did was indeed Hittler's biggest mistake, period. Even if the Germans had captured Moscow in the summer of 1941, they still would have been fucked.
Before the German offensive, Stalin had been preparing Russia for a war against the Capitalists by 1942. Yes, the Russian's were taken off-guard by nearly 3 million experienced German troops in late June 1941, but the fact is Stalin had tens or millions of troops (or people who would be forced to become troops) way the hell out in the Siberian frontier. He figured it would have taken until at least mid 1942 to transport all those troops to Western Russia anyways, which is what he had started to do prior to the German invasion.
As for the German's, the funny truth is that Hittler himself was a lousy military strategist. He was too egocentric and impatient (like a little kid really). Some of what Toskin mentioned is true - beginning the campaign in late June was too late to capture Moscow before winter. Although his troops were very well equiped going into Russia, Hittler became so pissed he would have to wait until Spring 1942 to restart the campaign that he let his men freeze and starve as a lesson. Great morale booster. Hittler was also the man who instructed the earth behind the German troops be scortched as they penetrated into Russia. Great foresight. Fact is he wanted Moscow immediately and didn't give a shit about anything else.
Unless Stalin were killed in or leaving Moscow the Germans were doomed on the western front no matter what. Stalin would have fled Moscow had it fallen to regroup his troops and return with hell to pay. The guy had a bloody armoured train he rolled around in - there's no way the German's would have pinched him leaving Moscow.
As for Britain, they had Canada's seemingly endless supply of resources behind them from day one. Although a relatively small number of Canadian troops went overseas compared to the US contribution, I can proudly say that the overwhelming majority of Canadian men fit for military service enlisted in the armed forces the went overseas the instant war broke out in the Britain. Canada's greatest contribution to the Allies was its resources in metal, fuel, munitions, and naval warships. I remember reading once that Canada built something like 20 ships for the British navy during WWII.
We had some of the best soldiers back then and we still do today. Its such a damn shame that our government and citizens don't respect what our armed forces do for us. This country has been resting on its glory far too long...
taranaki
03-04-2004, 03:28 PM
My children were listening avidly to their grandfather's tales of the war when he was last here....his tales of a six-year old boy in the early 1940's brought home to me just how long ago all of that happened....To all those who make smartass comments about 'if it weren't for America,you'd all be speaking German'...I say...grow up.If that's the last great deed that you can find to boast about,it just shows up how little your country has contributed to this planet relative to its size since then.
broddie50
03-04-2004, 03:39 PM
I'm fully grown folks. I like to point out some of the good things that my country has done, while you like to pick it apart... It's all good really, it's good to hear people's opinions from all over the world. I could point out countless other good deeds the U.S. has done since the 1940's, but then you'd just try to find some "conspiracy" behind that deed, and well, it's frankly not worth my time... Peace and hair grease...
taranaki
03-04-2004, 03:58 PM
I'm not picking your country apart,I'm picking YOU apart.can't abide ignorant nationalists,they vote for the fascists who start world wars.......
broddie50
03-04-2004, 04:26 PM
YOU havn't picked nobody apart... Matter of fact LT1 just gave me a good history lesson, and if anybody shone a light on my ignorance, it was him not YOU... I'm man enough to admit that I didn't have every single piece of knowledge concerning the topic, and I have been corrected. And if the facist you assume I voted for is Bush, well you just made an ass of yourself. I'd rather have somebody give me a history lesson then be attacked in a two sentence bullet. But since you can throw some 10 cent words around, I guess that makes you an intellectual... All I see out of your posts is the same well spoken e-thuggritry.. "I can't abide", well I give two shits about what you can and cannot abide. I'm going to be pro-U.S. until the day I die, but not anti-peace either..
freakray
03-04-2004, 08:02 PM
YOU havn't picked nobody apart... Matter of fact LT1 just gave me a good history lesson, and if anybody shone a light on my ignorance, it was him not YOU... I'm man enough to admit that I didn't have every single piece of knowledge concerning the topic, and I have been corrected.
Actually, I'm freakray and I was giving the history lesson before LT1 stepped in and elaborated on some points too :)
I'm going to be pro-U.S. until the day I die, but not anti-peace either..
That's encouraging. So you will be voting against Bush?
It's good to see you're man enough to admit you don't have all your history down, but why do you assume everyone that's disagreeing with the current US policies are non-American?
Actually, I'm freakray and I was giving the history lesson before LT1 stepped in and elaborated on some points too :)
I'm going to be pro-U.S. until the day I die, but not anti-peace either..
That's encouraging. So you will be voting against Bush?
It's good to see you're man enough to admit you don't have all your history down, but why do you assume everyone that's disagreeing with the current US policies are non-American?
broddie50
03-04-2004, 09:42 PM
I didn't assume for one minute that everybody that disagreed with U.S. policies were not American. That's one of the great things about the U.S., you can be vehemently opposed to the policies of those in power, and not get shot in the head or jailed for it. And I can't vote for reasons I'd rather not say on a online forum. But I'm kinda sick of politicians, no matter it be Rep. or Dem. I'd like to see Colin Powell run though... just my 2 cents.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025