French Invade Iraq.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/frenchtroops.html

Im glad their on our side!! :grinno:

Lol they don't look french, maybe I've just never seen a french dude dressed like that before lol.

Heh. As usual, the French caved.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/frenchtroops.html

Im glad their on our side!! :grinno:

:lol2: I would laugh at that reguardless of where their from :lol:

:rofl:

Thats great :lol:













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)

:lol: :rofl: :lol:

Speaking of the French, raise your hand if you like the French. Now raise both hands if you are French.

Huh, this section just isn't the same without naki coming in to flame me!!

:lol: :rofl: :lol:

Speaking of the French, raise your hand if you like the French. Now raise both hands if you are French.



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Hmm. Right into the mierd!

Huh, this section just isn't the same without naki coming in to flame me!!

LoL yeh no kidding - what the hell ever happened to ole' Tara-liberal-naki. :) Haven't seen him around in quite a while.

Haha I loved that video - those guys were totally owned by that quicksand :)

LoL yeh no kidding - what the hell ever happened to ole' Tara-liberal-naki. :) Haven't seen him around in quite a while.


Here ya go:

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=390045&page=5

and...

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=393312

Since we're talking about the French I thought I'd give everybody a history lesson.

If you don't know the English Red Coats had red coats not for dressing but for battle. They though if two friends were side by side and one was shot it wouldn't look so bad since he already had red on.

This is the reason the French make all their troops wear brown pants.

Brown pants. :spit:

Hehehehehe!http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Southpark.gif

Since we're talking about the French I thought I'd give everybody a history lesson.

If you don't know the English Red Coats had red coats not for dressing but for battle. They though if two friends were side by side and one was shot it wouldn't look so bad since he already had red on.

This is the reason the French make all their troops wear brown pants.

Tang, that was toooooo much!!! Hahahahaha!!! (ROFL)

I happen to be French. For the record, we're usually busy using our dicks on your women while you are out waving your dicks at each other. :evillol: You go fight. I'll surrender, stay here and keep an eye on your wife. Break a leg.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww............... Take a shower frenchie!


j/k :loser: :lol:

Nicely done RSX. And that joke is so old!!! AHHH!!

I'm kinda sad to see Naki leave. I missed that thread. We had differences, but I guess I was one of the sensible arguers 'cause he never went off like that on me. Oh well...he had, actually good arguements.

^Agreed, Damien. Love or hate him, you have to admit he was a formidable intellect.

I happen to be French. For the record, we're usually busy using our dicks on your women while you are out waving your dicks at each other. :evillol: You go fight. I'll surrender, stay here and keep an eye on your wife. Break a leg.

Yeah I'm sure you guys were singing that tune during WW2. :loser:

^Agreed, Damien. Love or hate him, you have to admit he was a formidable intellect.

Agreed, you took the words right out of my *ss... :screwy:

^I suspect that is where the majority of them originate, Franko.

But back on topic...it would have been interesting to see if the United States Army would have been capable of defending against the Nazi war machine under the same circumstances. By that I mean directly connected by land with an outnumbered defense force and lengthy border to defend. No vast oceans and continents to keep them apart.

Not as WWII began; the US Army hardly existed. It may have been the same as the French situation.

Not as WWII began; the US Army hardly existed. It may have been the same as the French situation.

The existing armed forces would have withered under the initial onslaught, retreated, regrouped and get reinforced from the armed militia and citizens performing widespread guerilla warfare against the well-armed invaders. Picture the invaders losing some battles and their arms/equipment which are then used against them. (same so far)

As with many invading armies, logistics eventually catches up and the advance is either slowed down or halted. The US mainland is much too large for an invading army from Germany to control, even with their air force. Eventually, the invaders would be pushed back out into the Atlantic from whence they came.

Hell, they couldn't even invade a small island call England...

But back on topic...it would have been interesting to see if the United States Army would have been capable of defending against the Nazi war machine under the same circumstances. By that I mean directly connected by land with an outnumbered defense force and lengthy border to defend. No vast oceans and continents to keep them apart.

That doesnt mean you should surrender tho.... My country is right beside Germany and we were their first target, we didnt give up, we tryed to fight them to the end. We had less than half the people, and we were a poor country against a rich country, atleast France is wealthy, you could of bought way more military weapons then we had.

its the principle, defend your land till you die, dont just give up

^I suspect that is where the majority of them originate, Franko.

Hahaha! Touche, mon ami, touche... That'll remind me to look behind whenever you're around...

But back on topic...it would have been interesting to see if the United States Army would have been capable of defending against the Nazi war machine under the same circumstances. By that I mean directly connected by land with an outnumbered defense force and lengthy border to defend. No vast oceans and continents to keep them apart.

Again, the Krauts could not even invade England and they were only a short swim away across this teeny weeny canal.

But, following the assumptions of no oceans to keep them apart... and assuming the US and Germany shared borders...

Their military buildup would have triggered reponses from the US, hopefully learning from the Great War. Their military manuevers "near the borders" would have seriously escalated those responses from the US military and maybe even resulted in pre-emptive strikes.

There is no way we could have halted their invasion across the borders since we still can't seal them against unarmed illegal aliens. The vastness of the US mainland and significantly larger population would be the invaders' undoing. They would use whatever fuel they could capture to keep their tanks, trucks and planes going, also food for their soldiers, but with no ammunition to use against an army supported by vastly superior-in-numbers armed militia and citizens fighting a guerilla war, their advance would grind down eventually (even assuming their machines would not break down mechanically -- those Tigers/Panzers were not as reliable as they had hoped).

See, there's another reason to keep The Second Amendment... in case we get invaded by Canada or Mexico...

So more than likely, we would have responded the exact same way, with the same result. So who are we to criticize?

When Hitler attacked to the North, the French armies were drawn northwards, then flanked and crushed. The French mustered everything they had- about 70 divisions- against something like 150 divisions of Germans. They retreated and regrouped to fight on with the British and eventually the Americans. The Poles fought and were defeated quickly and surrendered. France fought, was outmanuevered, defeated and surrendered. Holland, Belgium etc, etc...so why single out the French? Is it because they refuse to kiss American ass? Does this hurt your feelings? They regrouped and fought on from the British mainland and through resistance movements, just as the other defeated countries did. They even saved many Americans shot down over France. They fed and sheltered paratroopers on D-day. Perhaps saved the lives of Americans whose children's children are trivializing their efforts to this day on this very board. I guarantee those men were not so ungrateful.

And Gotti- all joking aside, how can you POSSIBLY criticize the French Army in WWII? The Poles pitted saber wielding horse-mounted cavalry (Pomorske Brigades) against crack Panzer tank divisions. Retreating Polish soldiers blocked roads preventing other Army columns from reaching the front. They were literally praying for British and French reinforcement.

And yes, I realize I'm turning a joke thread serious, but this is far more interesting...

And Gotti- all joking aside, how can you POSSIBLY criticize the French Army in WWII? The Poles pitted saber wielding horse-mounted cavalry (Pomorske Brigades) against crack Panzer tank divisions. Retreating Polish soldiers blocked roads preventing other Army columns from reaching the front. They were literally praying for British and French reinforcement.


Like i said we were a poor country against a rich one, but we kept fighting till the end to protect our homeland. No matter how much bigger and advanced the opposing army was. And it doesnt help that we got stabbed in the back by the Soviets. So we had TWO superpowers sandwiching us from both sides, with a combined 275 million+ more people in their countries, so OBVIOUSLY we were praying for reinforcement. Thats like being in the middle of the United States and having them try to take us over... but we kept fighting

RSX the French fell so fast and easily is because they made one of the biggest military blunders of all time.

They thought their Maginot Line couldn't be beat and put all their money and forces into it. This caused them to leave a big hole in the North thinking the Germans couldn't attack from there.

They were short sighted though and let several Panzer army groups roll right into the country. The Germans came up behind the Maginot Line and crushed it making it rather useless.

This is a big reason why they are made fun of so much.

So more than likely, we would have responded the exact same way, with the same result. So who are we to criticize?

We would have responded "similarly" but the result would have been different in that we would not have given up so "quickly" -- I say this with no malice intended towards the French people because they had very little choice. We would have had more choices (ahhh, America!) in that we have so much land to retreat into, regroup then, counter-attack, and again, so many armed citizens who could bring the fight to invaders.

As for the criticisms, more like poking fun them, those came mostly after the French government began behaving like they do now -- it's our way of sticking it to them.


<snip>...so why single out the French? Is it because they refuse to kiss American ass? Does this hurt your feelings?
<snip>

Well, because they have refused to support us on numerous incidents when we needed them giving the perception that they seem to, or rather wish to, very quickly forget how many Americans and its allies died on French soil fighting next to the French resistance. America and its allies are indebted to the French people who supported and fought with them -- we owe very little to the French administrations that followed after. Describing 'supporting the US'='kissing American ass' makes it simpler for the French government and its supporters to shirk its debts to the US and its allies.


And yes, I realize I'm turning a joke thread serious, but this is far more interesting...

It's good to see you try to defend your ancestral homeland. It's still going to end up being a joke thread because it is about the French.

They were short sighted though and let several Panzer army groups roll right into the country. The Germans came up behind the Maginot Line and crushed it making it rather useless.
This is a big reason why they are made fun of so much.

So where are all the Maginot Line jokes? :biggrin:

So where are all the Maginot Line jokes? :biggrin:

It's just easier to point fingers at the French for building it.

A Maginot Line walks into a bar....just isn't the same.

Also, for the record, I'm part French, sadly, to so I can tell these jokes.

We would have responded "similarly" but the result would have been different in that we would not have given up so "quickly" -- I say this with no malice intended towards the French people because they had very little choice. We would have had more choices (ahhh, America!) in that we have so much land to retreat into, regroup then, counter-attack, and again, so many armed citizens who could bring the fight to invaders.


I'm not questioning the outcome of a German invasion of U.S. territory. Obviously that would have been nearly impossible from a strategic standpoint. I'm thinking more along the lines of U.S. forces in the exact same situation as the French- essentially a similar number of American divisions in place of the French, defending France (since we have a tendency to criticize the courage, skill and command of the French forces). I would have to believe the ultimate outcome would be the same. Defeat. In which case it seems unfair to hold their defeat against them.

And Gotti- after some thinking, I have to admit that my comparison between the French and Polish forces is somewhat meaningless. Poland's forces were certainly undersupplied as opposed to the French. My point is merely that any European Army was ill-prepared to defend against the blitzkrieg, no matter how hard they fought. The fact that the French had more in the way of weaponry and troops than Poland is also inconsequential when you consider the sheer numbers of troops and armor the Germans threw at them and the brilliance of Rommel.

And Muscletang- I'm part German, so I can take it. :evillol:

I'm not questioning the outcome of a German invasion of U.S. territory. Obviously that would have been nearly impossible from a strategic standpoint. I'm thinking more along the lines of U.S. forces in the exact same situation as the French- essentially a similar number of American divisions in place of the French, defending France (since we have a tendency to criticize the courage, skill and command of the French forces). I would have to believe the ultimate outcome would be the same. Defeat. In which case it seems unfair to hold their defeat against them. <snip>


Okay... In that context, I believe the US forces would still have fought a more ferocious and protracted fight than the French before succumbing to the onslaught of the blitz.

They would have extracted more from the Germans: US forces have consistently had a higher "kill" ratio than their enemies since the Spanish-American War, and also because US forces are better trained militarily anyway. I say this as-a-matter-of-factly because of the French army's weaknesses in strategies (Maginot) and tactics (Dien Bien Phu, ) and a purely defensive doctrine adopted after the Great War.

Thus, when I say that Americans fight wars differently than the French, it's because Americans fight to win by overcoming their enemies, not by simply defending their turf.

Yes, it is quite unfair to hold France' defeat in 1940 at the hands of the Germans against them. Nevertheless, the French government will still get trashed for it just to remind them how they have behaved ever since.

Like they say in France, "Cie la f*cking vie..."

Again, the Krauts could not even invade England and they were only a short swim away across this teeny weeny canal.



If you check history, you'll see that "The Battle of Britain" was Hitler's attempt to soften up the Brits, removing their air power to make an invasion possible. He came very close; the British were down to something like 40 Spitfires and bombed out factories so they were unable to produce more. A couple more weeks and the invasion would have been possible.

Why didn't it happen? Hitler's insanity caused him to do 2 things which doomed Germany. The first was that the British bombed Berlin. Not a big thing in itself, but it pissed off Hitler and instead of keeping up the air campaign against British fighters and fighter factories, he instead tried to bomb London to rubble. This allowed the British to rebuild their factories and get more fighters in the air. The second was that Hitler absolutely hated the Russians, and kicked off his invasion of Russia about that time (or a little later). If he had finished off England first, then invaded Russia, the world would be a different place today
.

And Gotti- after some thinking, I have to admit that my comparison between the French and Polish forces is somewhat meaningless. Poland's forces were certainly undersupplied as opposed to the French. My point is merely that any European Army was ill-prepared to defend against the blitzkrieg, no matter how hard they fought. The fact that the French had more in the way of weaponry and troops than Poland is also inconsequential when you consider the sheer numbers of troops and armor the Germans threw at them and the brilliance of Rommel.



Ya i know.. i was just saying even tho our odds were hopeless we never gave up fighting for our homeland. Prolly because we just regained our national identity 20 years earlier, and we never wanted to lose it again. After all we are a proud people

Poland had, and still has the distinct military disadvantage of having no natural boundaries; other countries have rivers, mountains, or other physical features that would slow or stop an attacker. Poland has open plains both east and west.

Add to that the Germans and Russians both attacked; I don't think any country of the time could have resisted their combined onslaught. Poland is less than 400 miles from East to West, not that great of a distance for the #2 and #3 armies in the world at the time. (Japan being #1)

I'm surprised Flatrater hasn't wieghed in as a Czech. Those guys were screwed by EVERYONE. Germany, Poland, Hungary- while it's allies let it happen...

Franko- what's ironic is that the actions of the French government that piss Americans off are the same types of action you support in your own government. The U.S. says screw France we'll do what we deem necessary for our country. France says screw the U.S. we're going to do what's best for our country. So, if anything, I guess you can say they are both selfish. Their economy is strong, their energy needs met and they are not threatened by terrorists. Why would they possibly want/need to go to war? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. You say you hold their behavior since WWII against them...but they stood by us in the Gulf War. What more have you expected from them? Not every country wants or needs to be warring with someone but the U.S, it seems. Must they constantly and forever fight the U.S.'s battles to repay them for their participation in WWII?

You also mentioned the performance of the French in Vietnam. I don't have to tell you who else got their asses handed to them. Those in glass houses...

You also mentioned the performance of the French in Vietnam. I don't have to tell you who else got their asses handed to them. Those in glass houses...

The French lost fair and square. The U.S. military got their arms tied behind their back and kicked in the nuts by the government before they were sent over there so...

<snip>
Franko- what's ironic is that the actions of the French government that piss Americans off are the same types of action you support in your own government. The U.S. says screw France we'll do what we deem necessary for our country. France says screw the U.S. we're going to do what's best for our country. So, if anything, I guess you can say they are both selfish. Their economy is strong, their energy needs met and they are not threatened by terrorists. Why would they possibly want/need to go to war? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. You say you hold their behavior since WWII against them...but they stood by us in the Gulf War. What more have you expected from them? Not every country wants or needs to be warring with someone but the U.S, it seems. Must they constantly and forever fight the U.S.'s battles to repay them for their participation in WWII?

They stood by us in the Gulf War. Great! So they think that's paid off their debt? Not bloody likely.

That's pretty melodramatic saying that we ask them to "constantly and forever fight the U.S.'s battles..." but when we do ask them, they almost constantly say "no" anyway. As to who is selfish, that's relative. Fact remains that France has mostly chosen to forget its debt to the US and its allies -- I say "mostly" because they did "support" us in the Gulf War.

You also mentioned the performance of the French in Vietnam. I don't have to tell you who else got their asses handed to them. Those in glass houses...

That was a gimme so that it wouldn't seem that I was making the US to be perfect in its military strategies and tactics BUT it was meant to support my statement that France isn't exactly known for her winning military ways: (you just can't make these things up...)

- Gaellic Wars (Lost): In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by...an Italian.
- Hundred Years War (Mostly Lost): Saved by a female schizophrenic who creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
- Italian Wars (Lost): France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
- Thirty Years War (Tie claimed): France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
- War of Devolution (Tied): Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
- The Dutch War (Tied): It was, afterall, against the Dutch.
- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War (Lost, but Tie Claimed): Three ties in a row induces deluded Frenchies the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
- War of the Spanish Succession (Lost): The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
- American Revolution (Win Claimed): In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
- French Revolution (Won!!!): Well, primarily due the fact that the opponents were also French.
- The Napoleonic Wars (Lost): Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
- The Franco-Prussian War (Lost): Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
- World War I (Tied~Almost Lost): France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
- World War II (Lost): Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
- War in Indochina (Lost): French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
- Algerian Rebellion (Lost): Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French."
- Cold War (Undecided): Could never figure out on whose side she was on.
- Gulf War (Won): Technically because they supported the US and it allies.
- War on Terrorism (Losing): France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
- Iraq War (Lost): That is, her chance to "help" rebuild the infrastructure; her kickbacks from Saddam Hussein.

I've got the link here someplace... the above was already edited as not to offend the French...

If you check history, you'll see that "The Battle of Britain" was Hitler's attempt to soften up the Brits, removing their air power to make an invasion possible. He came very close; the British were down to something like 40 Spitfires and bombed out factories so they were unable to produce more. A couple more weeks and the invasion would have been possible.

Yes, I'm a bit of a history buff... Germany lost the war because of Hitler... plain and simple.

When Belgium declared neutrality, that f*cked France because the Germans just side-stepped Belgium, side-stepped Maginot with a feint up North. Seeing the results of the French responses, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force, about 40,000 men) barely made it out of France to return to England when they saw that the German invasion was not going to be stopped. Had they not made it out (thanks to over 100,000 French soldiers covering their retreat), the invasion of England would have been a near certainty, with or without the RAF intact.

^A history buff who relies on a website dedicated to Bin Laden cartoons and the like for his accurate information...

Amusing, however.
http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/allies3.htm

^A history buff who relies on a website dedicated to Bin Laden cartoons and the like for his accurate information...

Amusing, however.
http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/allies3.htm

I did say in the other reply that I was "a bit of a history buff..." and not a "big history buff..." :naughty:

:grinyes: RSX-S777, I expected you to take it personally, but, hey , don't forget :screwy: who it was who first tried to compare the US military to the :loser: French military in a scenario against the :evillol: Germans??? (hhhhmmmm???)

What I posted did not include: "The only French victory when led by a French(woman) who was then handed by the French to the enemy who then had her executed." (Joan of Arc, 100 Years War)

I think it was link either to/from
http://miljokes.com/a/sep03/090903.htm
or
http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/france.shtml
...not sure... just do a Google search on "French military jokes." (I prefer the classier web sites)

The search results in themselves are amusing, not to mention the quantity... My system crashed when I first tried the search for "French military victories." I expected it would come back with "no match" or "no results found."

^A history buff who relies on a website dedicated to Bin Laden cartoons and the like for his accurate information...
<snip>


Just curious, off topic, but along military actions,...do you know the reason why the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor?

Yes, the US was attacked because the Japanese thought they could remove the carriers and have air supremacy in the Pacific.

A little known fact is that the attack very closely matched (aka was a copy of) the one the British made at Taronto, Italy, in 1939.

:loser:

:loser:
the french of course:lol2::rofl:

Yes, the US was attacked because the Japanese thought they could remove the carriers and have air supremacy in the Pacific. <snip>


Yes, but allow me rephrase the question: What did the US do to Japan that provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor?

I'm surprised Flatrater hasn't wieghed in as a Czech. Those guys were screwed by EVERYONE. Germany, Poland, Hungary- while it's allies let it happen...

No we don't have any Czech jokes! Yes I will admit that when the Germans invaded the Czech Republic the Czech Army threw down there pitchforks. The Czechs had such a small army that the Germans could of wiped out the whole army in less than a week. I am not sure what was worse the Germans or the Russians invading my country.

I am not more a Czech than you are French. I may of been born in the Czech Republican and I am glad I was a Czech but right now I am an American born in Europe. I am an American citizen not a Czech citizen. Where you born in France or are some of your relatives French?

As for the French they are getting some of what they give back. The French have always snubbed their noses at the Americans. The French dislike most Americans and stop at nothing to talk down towars the US so the Americans have a right to flame back.

Yes, but allow me rephrase the question: What did the US do to Japan that provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor?

When the Japaniese invaded China the U.S. placed an embargo on them in protest. The U.S. stopped sending oil, ore, and other resources to Japan. Japan had no way of getting this any other way than invading the Southwestern Pacific islands with the oil and ore they needed.

The only thing that stood in their way though was the U.S. navy. So the Japanease tried destroying it at Pearl Harbor so they could have free access to the islands with the resources they needed.

Yes, but allow me rephrase the question: What did the US do to Japan that provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor?

After the Vichy shadow govt. in French Indochina allowed Japanese soldiers to station there (to cover their flank in the Chinese campaign), Roosevelt declared a complete oil embargo and froze all of their assets. I guess they didn't like that...
To be fair however, we knew they were gunning for the Phillipines when we pissed them off with that move.


Flatrater- I'm an American and proud to be one (although I'm sure you're aware of my complete dislike of the current administration). I'm not far removed, however, from my full-French immigrant relatives. I don't deny any attitude or animosity on the French side, I'm just trying to point out that the U.S. isn't so squeaky clean in the matter either. Our shit stinks, too, but most Americans feel they are superior for one reason or another (then get insulted when the French act the same way). What do you expect when two proud and often arrogant cultures butt heads? I don't really take personal offense, but it's definitely a fun point to argue. :biggrin: I will search for some Czech jokes and get back to you...

When the Japaniese invaded China the U.S. placed an embargo on them in protest. The U.S. stopped sending oil, ore, and other resources to Japan. Japan had no way of getting this any other way than invading the Southwestern Pacific islands with the oil and ore they needed.

The only thing that stood in their way though was the U.S. navy. So the Japanease tried destroying it at Pearl Harbor so they could have free access to the islands with the resources they needed.

After the Vichy shadow govt. in French Indochina allowed Japanese soldiers to station there (to cover their flank in the Chinese campaign), Roosevelt declared a complete oil embargo and froze all of their assets. I guess they didn't like that... <snip>.

Yes! To stop expansionist, industrially exploding, militarist Japan, the US stopped the flow of oil to Japan. What followed after is, well, history.

There are lessons to be learned from this, and yes, it's all about the oil. Cynical at it sounds, it is the "truth" that our way of life in the US and everywhere else which makes it so.

Iraq was attacked twice because of the danger it posed to the flow of oil out of the region. China and India are outpacing the US, Japan, South Korea and the rest of the industrial world in the consumption of oil.

The flow of oil out of the region cannot be impeded because the economic/industrial/military health and stability of many nations are at stake. Stop the flow and the industrial nations become destabilized -- wars will start to ensure that the flow is restored.

A few interesting facts:

-- China National Petroleum is the largest stakeholder in the Sudanese oil industry (Nov, 2000)
-- Gallons by which daily U.S. oil consumption would drop if SUV's average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000 (Apr, 2001)
-- Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield: 42,000,000 (Apr, 2001)
-- Percentage of oil imported by the U.S. last year that came from Persian Gulf countries: 23 (Feb, 2002)
-- Estimated amount the United States spends each year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf: $50,000,000,000 (Apr, 2002)
-- 69 percentage of the $1.1 trillion in Iraqi oil contracts are held by French or Russian companies (Jan, 2003)

More at http://www.harpers.org/Oil.html.

I'm surprised Flatrater hasn't wieghed in as a Czech. Those guys were screwed by EVERYONE. Germany, Poland, Hungary- while it's allies let it happen...


how exactly did poland screw the czechs?

-- 69 percentage of the $1.1 trillion in Iraqi oil contracts are held by French or Russian companies (Jan, 2003)

More at http://www.harpers.org/Oil.html. (http://www.harpers.org/Oil.html.)

So which 2 countries were the main opposition to the US invading Iraq?

So which 2 countries were the main opposition to the US invading Iraq?

Sounds like good business sense to me. :evillol: Guess who got the majority of the juicy Syrian exploratory contracts? That's right- the country who vows to spread freedom and democracy and refuses to deal with terrorist nations.

Gotti- After Hitler instigated the cessation of much of Czechoslovakia (Munich Pact), Poland and Hungary moved in and took posession of most of the remaining territory. Of course Germany turned around, invaded Poland and took the siezed territory anyway.

So which 2 countries were the main opposition to the US invading Iraq?

By population:

#1. Russia with 142,000,000
#2. Germany with 82,000,000
#3. France with 60,000,000
#4. USA with 49,000,000 (Democrats, that is)

Sounds like good business sense to me. :evillol: Guess who got the majority of the juicy Syrian exploratory contracts? That's right- the country who vows to spread freedom and democracy and refuses to deal with terrorist nations.

Sounds pretty hypocritical, doesn't it? Must be a lot of "grey areas" in between "will deal" and "refuses to deal" (e.g., hard/durable goods, food, oil, technology, weaponry, hostages, etc.). Keep in mind that regardless of who is in the White House (Republican or Democrat), this is business as usual - expanding and protecting our vested interests throughout the world. It's all about the oil... without (or with less of) it, most industries and economies will grind to a halt.

Sounds like good business sense to me. :evillol: Guess who got the majority of the juicy Syrian exploratory contracts? That's right- the country who vows to spread freedom and democracy and refuses to deal with terrorist nations.

All the libs have been saying that the US invaded Iraq for the oil yet less than 1/4 of the US oil used comes form that region. But wouldn't it be more correct to say NOT INVADING IRAQ was about the oil?

1.1 trillion is a whole lot of NO votes from Russia and France. Did Russia and France oppose the invasion to save the money that they make from Iraq oil more than doing what was consider right at the time with the intell that exisited?

Lots of people claim the US invaded Iraq for the oil I say France and Russia fought the invasion over the oil. We can call it good business but dealing with the devil will get you burned in the end.

RSX do you have any proof as to the Syrian contracts? And if you remember Syria wasn't called one of the axis of evil.

Funny how the Americans are claiming that they stepped in the war to help France. BS, we all know they did it because they knew that if they succeeded then they would be wiped off the planet as well. They were looking out for themselves then and still only looking out for themselves now. I don't blame them because I would do the same as any good leader should.
Then to turn around and say that they did it to save another country is just lies. No one owes them shit.