BF2S Forums France Supports Terrorist States

fucking rednecks. you dont know shit about other countries, do you? foodnipple, HAH! what a stupid ass name, almost as stupid as you really are. first of all, just because france doesnt go to foreign countries and kill and rape their people then enforce capitalism on them doesnt mean they should be exterminated. actually, i support france alot more than i would ever support america, even though i live here. salute a fucking flag? why? what did the u.s. do for me? i sure as hell know what bush did for me and all of us, he fucked us in the ass. fuck america.

Oh and P.S. Fuck nazis too, god damn ignorant fascists.

Last edited by silentsin (2006-01-25 19:35:03)

Spark wrote:

Still... would you call a harcore Nazi a good friend?

If he was on my side fighting a hard core commie? Hmmm. maybe maybe

Ok... for simplicity, I did some quotation here...
now to the responses

Horseman, I have no idea, where you got your attitude from,

Horseman Responds.. Sorry I don't know how to make the Quote boxes every one does, attitude ? ?? Didn't know I had attitude. I thought the USSR tried hard to Capture all it could, Had to put a wall up to keep its citizens in, Shot them if they tried to escape Etc. ? no?  please enlighten me.

Actually, the USSR did not conquer anything since WW2. They just created a sphere of interests as the US did. The wall you mention, was actually not the USSR but the German Democratic Republic, short DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, as it was officially called). You could also say East Germany. The decision to build that wall was completely made by the local government, not the USSR.

REAPER Says paid more attention in school.. especially history and political science.

Horseman Responds.. They didn't teach us this in school You had to want to read on your own, Our school was touchy feely "it was so Sad and Everyone was Wrong" ACLU crap etc.

How unfortunate. And I always thought, history lessons in Germany about the 3rd Reich where already touchy and in depth. I always say, that a broad and good knowledge of history is the key to the future since made mistakes can be avoided being made again. It is really mindboggling that governments spend more money on the capacity to destroy each other and the rest of humanity than educating the youth to prepare them for things to come. Kind of sad that we are in such a dead end, always staying at the same step of social evolution.

REAPER Says... The Germans managed to capture Odessa but that port was totally unsuited for supply convoys. All other ports (Murmansk, Leningrad and Archangelsk) were open.

Horseman Responds..Yes Thanks to US Navy I didn't say Germans had good ports I said USSR had none without our help. Correct ?

Actually, the only contribution of the Allied (that includes US and UK) where the Escorts for the convoys, nothing more. Murmansk and Archangelsk where large port by that time already,

REAPER Says...The Germans never managed to capture the agricultural base of the USSR since that is located in Kasachstan...

Horseman Responds.. Why did so many starve to death then?  eating putrid horse meat etc. Clue me in.?

You see, not only the supply lines of the Germans suffered from weather. First, there where torrid rains, softening the ground up until you would have sunken in waist deep, then the whole ground froze. It was quite difficult to supply troops locked in mass combat by that time since air supply was still a freshborn infant.

REAPER Says...The Germans tried but never managed to capture the Russian oilsupply located at the Caspian Sea (the area around Baku).


Horseman Responds.. I thought the  where the Lions share of Oil fields production and refinement was in Germany's hands ? no ?.

Nope, sorry... Germans never got that far. They nearly managed it but where stopped dead halfway. Actually the battle of Stalingrad was a result of the attempt to capture the Oilfields. Until 1941 the major oil supply actually came from the USSR and from Romania... after the invasion of Russia, most of the Oil came from Romania and was supplemented by synthetic fuels distilled via hydrogenation plants using coal as source

REAPER Says...The Russians moved their industrial base behind the Ural to Sibiria... so actually the Germans did not reach any of those either.

Horseman Responds.. moved their industrial base Really. Moved a Geographical location. hmm Why didn't they move their Borders too.

Why should they? Stalin ordered to disassemble whole industrial plants near Moskow, Leningrand and other former industrial centres and to assemble them back in cities like Novosibirsk and Magnitogorsk.

REAPER Says...Since you mention Africa... might I remind you, that Operation Barbarossa (Attack on the USSR) started on June 22nd 1941. The german military operation in Africa started February 1941 but not this was the reason for a slight delay (actually 4 Weeks, not 3 months) but it was the invasion of Yugoslavia.

Horseman Responds.. News to me.

There are several good readings on that... Two of them are Liddell-Hart "History of the 2nd World War" and Gerhard L. Weinberg "A World in Flames". The former was a participant of WW2 as military advisor and was from the UK, the other one is a military historian from the US. Both books are pretty unbiased.

REAPER Says...Concerning the "inferiority" of Russian Technology: The M4 Sherman Tank of the US was by far the most produced Tank in WW2, however it was neither the most advanced or the most powerful one. Realistic estimates of the allied High Command say, that 5 M4 Sherman where neccessary to defeat on German Panther or Tiger Tank. The Panther Tank was actually developed in response to the Russian T-34 as it posed a serious threat to earlier models. Go figure....

Horseman Responds.. This was exactly my point. Clearly you didn't read what I said.

Well... I might missed the point there, sorry. Happens sometimes.

REAPER Says...Also: The Russians developed a ground attack plane, that was considered a serious threat by the Germans: the IL-2 Sturmovik... the first plane that could really be called ground attack plane. That thing was heavily armored (German Fighters had to use 20mm and 30mm cannons to down them as the 7.92mm and 12.7mm MG could not penetrate the armor and even hits of a 20mm cannon could be survived), heavily armed (2 7.62 MG which had a remarkably high fire-rate, 2 cannons of either 20mm, 23mm or 37mm, 600 kg bombload and between 8 and 16 unguided rockets) and quite maneuvrable for its size. Actually, the concept of the IL-2 is the basis of the nowadays A-10


Horseman Responds..Good plane Ahead of its time, well into the late 50s. its use was Dramatically improved do to the Terrain where it was employed. It was Ideal for the Eastern Front It would have been good in North Africa to I think. It was a Great Idea I agree.

Actually the logical development of the older German Stuka and the Schlachtflugzeuge (Dive-Bombers and Close Air Support Planes)

REAPER Says...Actually the help of the US to the USSR (apart from the help of the UK) was not quite without a hitch. First of all: all US planes supplied to the USSR via lend-lease (yup, Russia had to pay)  ( So Big Deal ! ) where second line and obsolet (like the P-40 Warhawk and the P-38 Airacobra).

Horseman Responds..These planes "Became obsolete " when the war started they were at or near 1st line. The Air Cobra was an Excellent Aircraft hampered by a slightly under powered engine it did better in The Denser air of the Pacific theatre as did the P38 which was near useless in Europe But Ruled in the South Pacific. I don't understand the Aerodynamic principles but that's what I read. The Engines it was designed around were instead employed in P51 production. It was a good plane. Better than any they gave us.

Actually, the Airacobra (strange, I looked it up in 4 different locations on the Internet and Books... it is really Airacobra, not Air Cobra... I made a mistake as well... It's the P-39, the P-38 was the Lightning) had more undesirable properties. The engine was actually quite strong (an Alison V-1710-85 with 1200 hp... the engine of the then contemporary Messerschmitt Bf-109E had 1175 hp). The problems this plane had actually resulted from its innovative design: The engine was located behind the pilot and it had the first 3 point landing gear. However it was very prone to stalling at lower altitudes and speed. On the other hand: with four 12,7mm MG and one 37mm cannon it was one of the most heavily armed fighters.

The P-51 by the way mostly used Rolls-Royce Merlin engines. Also, since this plane only had 4-6 12,7mm MG's, it was had a lighter armament than most other fighters of that time. However, it was designed as a long range escort fighter, so most space were fuel tanks

REAPER Says...Actually, Russian planes in WW2 where quite up to modern technological standards... however the USSR tended to build their equipment more sturdier and simpler as the western counterparts... which is a design-philosophy they stuck to.

Horseman Responds..Just you opinion here. Not shared in anything I ever read.

Well... some examples: The Yakolev Yak-9 or the Lawotschkin La-7.

REAPER Says...You say, that russian technology was 20 years behind? Get real... they might have built their planes computers not with microelectronic chips but that made the electronic systems easier to maintain and interestingly enough more resistant to EMP*. Also.... the T-72 and T-80 tank is superior to the M1A2 in many things...

Horseman Responds..Really... Really. ? Here I must take exception. This deserves its own Post. Its just not true.

* he means it used tube not transistor technology.

See you there.

REAPER Says...US war equipment is suited mostly for good weather in a moderate climate... Russian equipment is suited for sand and heat of a desert or the cold weather and snow of arctic climate.

Horseman Responds..I will not argue USSR design parameters but it is still inferior.

Then I would like to have detailed reasons here.

REAPER Says...On a side note: US do not use laser guided "smart" bombs (since when are bombs smart anyway?)

Horseman Responds.. Its the Excepted generic term as opposed to unguided Dumb bombs. your wasting space here

It's called sarcasm. I have a lot of that.

REAPER Says....but GPS guided because they could not afford to bring in SEAL Teams or Force Recon to paint the Target with a laser. US tends more and more to conducting armchair-wars.

Horseman Responds..Explain this. I mean I think I know what your saying but please for all Expand on this .

Simple... as the latest war in Iraq has proven, US military relies heavily on air-power, be it Stealth Bombers or Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Everything is bombed until it is considered a soft target. The groundforces merely secure the territory. So... how is that being done? Not by the commanders on site but by the "electronic taskforces" in the US. They have their computers, they plan the missions, they give the orders... all by pressing a few buttons. Basically, you could do it from an armchair. Even the UAV's are directed from the US. This way, war becomes impersonal and looses its horror, which in my opinion is not a good thing.

REAPER Says...Concerning atrocities in WW2. Yes, Russia has committed many, but not nearly as many as Germany, I can tell you that. Russia did not gas humans by the millions, they did not fill nearly as many massgraves with shot POW's or Partisans as Germany did.

Horseman Responds..Yes they did and all the newly released documentation backs it in fact we can lower Germanys' Score because everything the USSR did had been attributed to them previously even by our government. And they still fall behind Japan. New data gives Germany 3 rd place during that Era. China has 1st place for atrocities and mass murder of civilians currently.  look it up

Maybe... but who did build facilities with the only purpose to massmurder? I guess no country except Germany has built Gaschambers so big, that over 1000 humans would fit into it and be killed at the same time. That is industrially organized genocide... and that is so far unprecedented. Unfortunately, much of the medical knowledge today has its basis on the inhumane experiments conducted in these camps.

REAPER Says...But as a matter of fact... the US committed atrocities in WW2 as well... like interning nearly all citizens which where of Japanese origin in internment camps under inhumane conditions...

Horseman Responds..Big deal.. were there gas chambers ?  Basically we were mean to them. little else considering everything else happening at the time it pales. Get Real,

I don't think, that this should be a contest of "He who kills the most innocent, looses" but more of "All who kill innocents, loose"

REAPER Says... by the definition, these camps also qualify as concentration camps (in the technical term). Also it is known that US submarines in the last months of the war attacked any ship with an asiatic looking crew and sunk it (even fisherboats) regardless wether the crew was japanese, malayan, phillipin, chinese, indonesian...

Horseman Responds..You mean we hampered the Food production in a time of all out war?  what a concept.

No I don't... what I mean is, that at some point, ships where attacked indiscreminately even if they where indisputably noncom and not even indentified as opponents. I would suggest reading Richard O'Kane "Wahoo"... That is actually a book by a participant. O'Kane was XO on the USS Wahoo, a submarine being commanded by Dudley W. "Mush" Morton.

REAPER Says...just because they were bored and had no targets anymore.


Horseman Responds..Thin ice here... Prove it.

Some numerical facts: In the time between Dec. 1941 and August 1945, US Submarines sank 4,8 million BRT of Japanese Ships (out of 9 Million BRT by the way). By 1944, the Japanese Merchent Marine was not really existant anymore, the Japanese Battlefleet was effectively shattered after the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The remainder of ships did retreat to Singapore and would never leave again because Japan lacked oil. Most Japanese fighters where grounded due to lack of fuel, ships could not sail anymore because of lack of fuel. Actually, the worlds largest Kamikaze was not a plane but a battleship: The Yamato... when she sailed to defend Okinawa, she had barely enough fuel to sail to Okinawa, but there was not fuel loaded for the return trip. Basically, there was no naval threat anymore by the end of 1944 and still, submarine attacked ships that where civilian.... since there where nearly no japanese civilian ships left, guess which nationalities they sailed for.

REAPER Says...So... before you throw you disregard towards others, be sure that you have a clean slate...

Horseman Responds..What others ? The USSR doesn't exist anymore !

Russia does exist, the European countries exist... and if Europe and Russia would decide, that the US have gone far enough... guess who would be the assraped one...

REAPER Says...and remember: without German technological advancement (wire guided anti-tank missiles, Rocketry, Tank improvement and aviation technology), the US technology would not have been as advanced as it is now, since they stole it as spoils of victory after the war...

Horseman Responds..Agreed but we didn't have to Try too hard, most well placed Germans were trying hard to be captured by The USA or GB. Why is that? please explain that ? I mean we where committing all these atrocities and they are like please take me too. You have to explain this.

You did quote a ton of stuff I never even heard of before. Do you have a (Short reading list) you could post I prefer to read books from other perspectives. It really helps TY for your time and effort.

Well.... I can have a look at that... I posted two readings on World War 2 above... Trust me, they are good... the first one covers more the operational history, the second one deals with the bigger picture including politics.

Renegade2k9 wrote:

I just came on and saw this discussion and read through it. It intrigued me, so I made a screen name so I can add my 2 cents. Some people were talking about our more advanced weapons compared to simpler weapons. Mainly the Russian T72 and T80 vs. the American M1A1 and the M1A2. The T72 was only good against American tanks before the M1A2 and M1A1. The M1A1 and M1A2 have been very reliable from what I hear. They used them in Desert Storm during all kinds of weather and they worked and destroyed the enemy T72’s from such a range that the T72’s were destroyed before they even knew the M1A1’s were their. From what I hear about the T80 it’s more advanced but very problematic. The reason for this is because the Russians aren’t any good at building more advanced weapon systems. They use mostly old and outdated equipment, so it can’t compare. Just because something is simpler doesn’t necessarily mean it will last longer than a more advanced device. If the more advanced system is properly researched and improved it will work just as well as the older system probably even better since it is an improvement. The Russian’s are notorious for rushing new weapon systems out that haven’t been fully perfected. A good example of this are the nuclear sub’s they had during the Cold War, many of them were lost because of poor building quality and design. They rushed them out and emphasized quantity over quality which doesn’t work all the time. I know this subject was talked about much earlier in this forum but I wanted to add that. Now getting on to what I mainly came here to say. Why do you hate Rednecks so much? They have faults but they are allowed to hate the rest of the world the same as the rest of the world hates the United States. The only thing I agree with is that foodnipple is a really stupid name and that Nazi's are ignorant fascists. I don't like France or the French people (Never actually meet a French person but from people I know and trust they had encounters with them that have been negative). I also neither trust nor care for most of the rest of the world. I wouldn't vouch for France so easily either, you forget that at one time they were a colonial power through out most of the world. Maybe not as powerful as Britain but still had there hands into many countries. I bet that when they controlled those countries they didn't always if ever treat the people of the country with respect. They probably did terrible things, things that are far worse than what we ever did. I support the United States and always will, I will never support Europe or the rest of the world. My family came to this country well over 100 years ago, they came from their multiple countries of origin (European Nations by the way) they had nothing. They were uneducated, poor, and starving. They came here and slowly made a life for themselves, and over the years they became successful. In that time we worked hard and had several of my family members that freely (Not Forcefully) join the armed forces to serve and protect the country in times of war. Now we live a comfortable life and it's thanks to this country. If my family stayed in Europe they would have suffered, but because they left we didn't have to suffer. I'm glad they left, if we stayed we would of became complainers like most of the rest of the people that live their. Not to mention we wouldn't have the right to own a gun and we wouldn't be able to afford everything we have now. We wouldn't even have the option of owning a big vehicle like a suv, truck, or powerful car. We would have to drive one of those mini sub compact pieces of shit cars or wagons that we Americans laugh at. This country made us what we are not some pussy European country that only complains about our actions in the world. Instead of attacking the President they say "it’s the United States" not Bush. They blame the people and the government not Bush. I am neutral to Bush; I neither like nor hate him. I feel we need a president that is willing to use force to ensure our freedom and security, but that understands that sometimes war isn't the answer. Do I think Iraq should of been invaded? Yes and No. The country should have been invaded and occupied during the first Gulf War, not now. They invaded Kuwait and plundered their country and if we didn't act Iraq had the potential to destabilize the region. That should of been enough to make a commitment to invade and occupy their country until a more stable leader was put in his place. Not to mention what Saddam did to the people of his country. He did terrible things to his people. If you don't like it here leave, their are thousands of people willing to risk their life's to get into this country and take your place. We don't need your kind here complaining about everything, I know I will never leave this country for several reasons, 1) I will never force myself to learn the metric system 2) This country has done more for me than any other country can do for me and my family 3) I like the knowledge of knowing that I can get a license and own a gun and that I can go to my local car dealers and buy Hummer's, Ford Explorer's, Chevy Suburban’s, Honda Pilot's and Ridgelines, Nissan Pathfinders, and so on. 4) I don't care what other countries say we lack but I know I can make more money here than in any other country. Personally in a way I wish we had fewer freedoms (not really) so we can classify you as being useless and throw you into one of the oceans, Canada, or Mexico. In the end though as much as I hate people like you it still wouldn't be right to do something like that. So in closing Fuck everyone that is against the United States, Fuck the Terrorist, Fuck the Nazi’s and Fuck You for being such an Anti American Scumbag. Those are my 2 cent's, if you don't like it too bad I am an American and I can say it.

Wow, I wonder why people think Americans are dumb.

--

And the Winner of the Most Incredibly Long Post is................ REAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Renegade2k9 wrote:

I just came on and saw this discussion and read through it. It intrigued me, so I made a screen name so I can add my 2 cents. Some people were talking about our more advanced weapons compared to simpler weapons. Mainly the Russian T72 and T80 vs. the American M1A1 and the M1A2. The T72 was only good against American tanks before the M1A2 and M1A1. The M1A1 and M1A2 have been very reliable from what I hear. They used them in Desert Storm during all kinds of weather and they worked and destroyed the enemy T72’s from such a range that the T72’s were destroyed before they even knew the M1A1’s were their. From what I hear about the T80 it’s more advanced but very problematic. The reason for this is because the Russians aren’t any good at building more advanced weapon systems. They use mostly old and outdated equipment, so it can’t compare. Just because something is simpler doesn’t necessarily mean it will last longer than a more advanced device. If the more advanced system is properly researched and improved it will work just as well as the older system probably even better since it is an improvement. The Russian’s are notorious for rushing new weapon systems out that haven’t been fully perfected. A good example of this are the nuclear sub’s they had during the Cold War, many of them were lost because of poor building quality and design. They rushed them out and emphasized quantity over quality which doesn’t work all the time. I know this subject was talked about much earlier in this forum but I wanted to add that. Now getting on to what I mainly came here to say. Why do you hate Rednecks so much? They have faults but they are allowed to hate the rest of the world the same as the rest of the world hates the United States. The only thing I agree with is that foodnipple is a really stupid name and that Nazi's are ignorant fascists. I don't like France or the French people (Never actually meet a French person but from people I know and trust they had encounters with them that have been negative). I also neither trust nor care for most of the rest of the world. I wouldn't vouch for France so easily either, you forget that at one time they were a colonial power through out most of the world. Maybe not as powerful as Britain but still had there hands into many countries. I bet that when they controlled those countries they didn't always if ever treat the people of the country with respect. They probably did terrible things, things that are far worse than what we ever did. I support the United States and always will, I will never support Europe or the rest of the world. My family came to this country well over 100 years ago, they came from their multiple countries of origin (European Nations by the way) they had nothing. They were uneducated, poor, and starving. They came here and slowly made a life for themselves, and over the years they became successful. In that time we worked hard and had several of my family members that freely (Not Forcefully) join the armed forces to serve and protect the country in times of war. Now we live a comfortable life and it's thanks to this country. If my family stayed in Europe they would have suffered, but because they left we didn't have to suffer. I'm glad they left, if we stayed we would of became complainers like most of the rest of the people that live their. Not to mention we wouldn't have the right to own a gun and we wouldn't be able to afford everything we have now. We wouldn't even have the option of owning a big vehicle like a suv, truck, or powerful car. We would have to drive one of those mini sub compact pieces of shit cars or wagons that we Americans laugh at. This country made us what we are not some pussy European country that only complains about our actions in the world. Instead of attacking the President they say "it’s the United States" not Bush. They blame the people and the government not Bush. I am neutral to Bush; I neither like nor hate him. I feel we need a president that is willing to use force to ensure our freedom and security, but that understands that sometimes war isn't the answer. Do I think Iraq should of been invaded? Yes and No. The country should have been invaded and occupied during the first Gulf War, not now. They invaded Kuwait and plundered their country and if we didn't act Iraq had the potential to destabilize the region. That should of been enough to make a commitment to invade and occupy their country until a more stable leader was put in his place. Not to mention what Saddam did to the people of his country. He did terrible things to his people. If you don't like it here leave, their are thousands of people willing to risk their life's to get into this country and take your place. We don't need your kind here complaining about everything, I know I will never leave this country for several reasons, 1) I will never force myself to learn the metric system 2) This country has done more for me than any other country can do for me and my family 3) I like the knowledge of knowing that I can get a license and own a gun and that I can go to my local car dealers and buy Hummer's, Ford Explorer's, Chevy Suburban’s, Honda Pilot's and Ridgelines, Nissan Pathfinders, and so on. 4) I don't care what other countries say we lack but I know I can make more money here than in any other country. Personally in a way I wish we had fewer freedoms (not really) so we can classify you as being useless and throw you into one of the oceans, Canada, or Mexico. In the end though as much as I hate people like you it still wouldn't be right to do something like that. So in closing Fuck everyone that is against the United States, Fuck the Terrorist, Fuck the Nazi’s and Fuck You for being such an Anti American Scumbag. Those are my 2 cent's, if you don't like it too bad I am an American and I can say it.

Ok, now I'll try and respond to that.

There's some bits I agree with. DON'T blame the people. They have been decieved, tricked and conned. DO blame Bush on the politics.

However, what is highly repulsive to others is again, this self-centredness. This I-don't-give-a-fuck-about-anyone-else-attitude. I've already tried in my way to respond to it with solid facts, but now I'm tired. All I can say now is fuck you too. We wouldn't mind if you weren't the world's largest polluter AND the only major country which has started a war in the new millenium.

Spark wrote:

And the Winner of the Most Incredibly Long Post is................ REAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're welcome

Well when 2-3 people have a similar view and they are flaming a country which they never lived in (or lived in it and complained about everything) it gets upsetting. They make it like everyone that lives here are fat morons. What makes me sicker is that we give aid out like free pencils. These peoples countries aren't nearly involved in the world as we are. They only believe what their media and the internet feeds them. If they want to blame Bush I don't care, but if you take it out on the country, the people, or the government I am going to dig up dirt on their country and put it in their face. They have no right to tell us how to run our country, if we want to drive suv's that get 10 MPG that is our right. After what we had to endure throughout our history especially in the 20th century we should have the right to own weapons and suv's and not be told we are retarded, violent, uncaring, wasteful people. We were dragged into two world wars because of countries in Europe that couldn't handle themselves. I really don't have anything against themselves or their countries, but what they say about my country builds my hate up for the rest of the world. So I have no regrets in what I said, the only thing I regret is that I didn't break up my first statement so people wouldn't have problems reading it.

yuck7777 wrote:

How France does the unthinkable? The war in Iraq has yelded infomation that France since the end of the first gulf war was supplying Saddam with over $20 billion worth of military equipment and spare parts which were smuggled in through Siria. In exchange France got 23% of the Iraqis oil. All this while Iraq was under sanctions from the UN. And of couse they didn't back the Iraq war, Because it would make them lose the sweet deal they had.
Now with Iran. The French have been investing alot of money in Iran. The Big automotive companies have invested a big chunk of money there.
How can we trust France in there talks with Iran over the nukes? Should we boycott France? Should the US and there true Allies label France as a terrorist supporter or even a Terriorist state?
What do you think?

My god!  That's awful.  A country that supports known terrorists.  That manipulates the world in such a way as to get the best deal.  Next thing you'll be telling me that they illegally invaded another country and incarcerated innocent people outside of the law.  I mean if they did that it'd be bad enough, but what happens if they had a leader who was so incompetent he had to ASK his staff to go to the toilet.

I'm looking forward to Iran opening up their oil market to Europe properly, should start to balance the world out and help us say adios to the dollar

Why it would be chaos.


I have a sudden urge to cosh you round the back of the head and ask you to fetch my slippers.  Which is silly, because I already have a retarded twerp to do that for me.  Ah well, two's better than one.

As for only East Germany haveing a Wall ...Are you really saying the USSR had open borders and allowed free travel ?  Everyone I know from the USSR had to Excape? Including sevaral Soldiers who excaped while patroling the borders to prevent excapes.

I'll just leave Reaper to do the talking, he knows more than me. And he has more patience.

--

chuckle_hound wrote:

yuck7777 wrote:

How France does the unthinkable? The war in Iraq has yelded infomation that France since the end of the first gulf war was supplying Saddam with over $20 billion worth of military equipment and spare parts which were smuggled in through Siria. In exchange France got 23% of the Iraqis oil. All this while Iraq was under sanctions from the UN. And of couse they didn't back the Iraq war, Because it would make them lose the sweet deal they had.
Now with Iran. The French have been investing alot of money in Iran. The Big automotive companies have invested a big chunk of money there.
How can we trust France in there talks with Iran over the nukes? Should we boycott France? Should the US and there true Allies label France as a terrorist supporter or even a Terriorist state?
What do you think?

My god!  That's awful.  A country that supports known terrorists.  That manipulates the world in such a way as to get the best deal.  Next thing you'll be telling me that they illegally invaded another country and incarcerated innocent people outside of the law.  I mean if they did that it'd be bad enough, but what happens if they had a leader who was so incompetent he had to ASK his staff to go to the toilet.

I'm looking forward to Iran opening up their oil market to Europe properly, should start to balance the world out and help us say adios to the dollar

Why it would be chaos.


I have a sudden urge to cosh you round the back of the head and ask you to fetch my slippers.  Which is silly, because I already have a retarded twerp to do that for me.  Ah well, two's better than one.

Read the rest of the topic and you'll see that issue was closed a long time ago

Horseman 77 wrote:

REAPER Says...Actually, the only contribution of the Allied (that includes US and UK) where the Escorts for the convoys, nothing more.


Horseman Responds....    Isnt that the only thing a NAVY is for? Espacialy back then and particurly in the Atlantic To control the sea and protect the shipping lanes ? once in a while as a strike force


REAPER Says...US war equipment is suited mostly for good weather in a moderate climate... Russian equipment is suited for sand and heat of a desert or the cold weather and snow of arctic climate.

Horseman Responds.....I will not argue USSR design parameters but it is still inferior.

REAPER Says...Then I would like to have detailed reasons here.

Horseman Responds.......ok thousands had the crap blown out of them sometimes two T72s with one Round ! I think we lost 4 M1As

REAPER Says...Maybe... but who did build facilities with the only purpose to massmurder? I guess no country except Germany has built Gaschambers so big, that over 1000 humans would fit into it and be killed at the same time. That is industrially organized genocide...

Horseman Responds. They were just better at Well everything. We would have had to build that kinda technology for the USSR to have it in WWII

I Said USSR not Russia Most Russians I know try and disasociate themselves with the USSR.

Well Horseman, I think, I posted in the other thread the answer concerning the Iraqi T-72... It is a difference between shooting at an outdated model with solid steel armor piloted by not really trained crews with a moral as low as it can geht and the updated version with composite armor and ERA piloted by a highly trained crew with splendid morale...
I am still of the opinion, that equipment does not win or loose wars...

to make a whole Word document short..

America has a big fantasy Politicians...

a whole lotta bullshit and low evidence to proof things why they are in iraq...i hope Bush politics collaps soon coz now if i see that bullcrap on tv i have to vommit