Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

not on this forum pal -  They will ban me - but you, they will let you stay..

My diabolic plan has fizzled out :?

[PanzerKing]

Getu-Decul, I don't want to be mean, but you are dillusional. The US wants N. Korea for new bases and minerals? What the f*ck are you talking about? We already have bases on the Korean peninsula...as for minerals, that's the last place on the earth we would go...

It is true the US needs oil, but what you say is the funniest thing I've read all week long. The real reason we have tensions is because they are developing nuclear weapons, and the gov't feels a bit threatened by that. You know they did break that international treaty from 1994 too...

[Geto-Dacul]

PanzerKing wrote :

QUOTE

Getu-Decul, I don't want to be mean, but you are dillusional. The US wants N. Korea for new bases and minerals? What the f*ck are you talking about? We already have bases on the Korean peninsula...as for minerals, that's the last place on the earth we would go...

It's the US Army who is still on Korean soil, and not the opposite. Russians have from long evacuated the northern part of the peninsula. But the American troops are still stationned there. No need for fool language, if you don't agree with me... Korea is a very good advanced "outpost" for the Americans.

QUOTE

It is true the US needs oil, but what you say is the funniest thing I've read all week long. The real reason we have tensions is because they are developing nuclear weapons, and the gov't feels a bit threatened by that. You know they did break that international treaty from 1994 too...

And what if they are developing nuclear weapons? Don't hey have the right to do it, if they have the possibility? What, only America, Russia, France and G-B are allowed to have such weapons? Korea is at thousands of miles of Washington D.C.. Maybe if Washington would retreat its troops from that country, than the threat would surely disapear.

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandy wrote :

QUOTE

But 2 different nations at that time.

One nation, 2 countries! Koreans are ONE nation! Like East and West Germans, who are a single nation, but were temporarely divided in two separate states.

QUOTE

You're kidding ? Drop your communist history book, Getu.

The US Army was an occupational force in S.Korea, just like the Soviets were in the Northern part (but retreated, at least). What I said id then true.

QUOTE

do not see anything about political system in that article. It talks about how S Koreans dealt with N Koreans. That is : the same way N Koreans dealt with S Koreans. War is not nice.

I don't think that brothers would kill eachother like this. The South Korean army was back then under the government's control, who him, was under American control.

Regards,

Getu'

[mabadesc]

Maresal said:

QUOTE

I hold more of a grudge on those \"mabadesc\" type Romanians who believed the US would have opened a second Front in the balkans and we would not be handed over to the Russians.

Err......what are you talking about? I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that if Antonescu hadn't screwed things up in August '44, Romania could've held out longer on the FNB line and wait for a better armistice.
I, just like most Romanians, feel that the division of Europe in '45 was a huge mistake/foolishness on the part of Roosevelt and Churchill.

QUOTE

There were alot of good Americans, especially before World War 2, the entire poppulation was against another world war.

Aye, there's the rub! Finally, we understand you. You're still pissed off at the world because the US joined WWII. Let it go, man! Hitler is dead, so is Antonescu.

QUOTE

Think about the many good men, political prisonners, generals, officers,legionnaires, intellectuals...who perished in Communist prisons thinking ..\"dreaming\" that the American will some day come and liberate them... they waited a long time. They died there, and nobody came.

Have you thought about blaming the communists who put them in prison instead of the Americans who didn't come?

(By the way, quick off-topic regarding North Korea, it's funny, the rotting in prison of all the political prisoners in North Korea didn't seem to bother you at all earlier).

I don't know why, but I have a feeling you're mostly concerned about the "legionnaires" :wink:

QUOTE

I don't see how America will help this \"shitty ex-russian province\" [Romania] that I heard one say

Way to generalize You heard ONE person and because of this you say the "West" won't help us. Regardless, though, even if the West would help us, you'd still get pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd say they were "meddling" in a nation's internal affairs.

[PanzerKing]

Geto, I wasn't cussing at you, I was just a little tripped out about what you said. Nothing personal.

But anyways I think you made a very big mistake about me. The United States government has tensions, not me. I never said they shouldn't have weapons or that I was personally opposed ok? Nothing mades me more mad than when people automatically assume they know my stance on issues and judge me for something I never said. You associated my opinion with the U.S. government's stance on N Korea...that's not cool. 8)

I'm a little confused about your reply as the US troops stationed in S Korea. I was saying that we are already on the peninsula, why invade the north just for bases? You understand?

Thanks

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

The US Army was an occupational force in S.Korea, just like the Soviets were in the Northern part (but retreated, at least). What I said id then true.

No. It was not an "occupational force" by any definition of the term.

QUOTE

I don't think that brothers would kill eachother like this.

Oh yes they would. Fratricide wars are among the most violent and passionate in history.

QUOTE

The South Korean army was back then under the government's control, who him, was under American control.

In your book, I'm sure Western Europe was also occupied and under American control. Where was the European Guerilla Liberation Front ? I will tell you there was none because Western Europeans were just happy to have US support.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I, just like most Romanians, feel that the division of Europe in '45 was a huge mistake/foolishness on the part of Roosevelt and Churchill.

If you're talking about the east/west iron curtain then I wonder what choice there was. Stalin the Wise would have gladly united Europe under a communist flag.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

One nation, 2 countries! Koreans are ONE nation! Like East and West Germans, who are a single nation, but were temporarely divided in two separate states.

That's what I meant. Two different states. North Korea launched a war of agression on it's southern neighbor. I don't care their reasons, they crossed the frontier, started firing on their non communist brothers and would not stop until reaching their goals or being kicked in the ass. That they write BS in their history book to justify their war will not change the facts : North Korean agression of an independant and sovereign state. Crystal clear, even for the UN.

[Victor]

QUOTE

I hold more of a grudge on those \"mabadesc\" type Romanians who believed the US would have opened a second Front in the balkans and we would not be handed over to the Russians.

You have a grudge against marshal Antonescu? Interesting.

QUOTE

But the bombing of Civilian towns and villages, and killing famillies for the purpose of demoralizing the army at the front or forcing a nation's surrender through such methods I deeply resent.

This did not happen in Romania. In Germany or Japan yes, but in Romania were attacked viable military targets. The precision was poor.

But then I suppose you also dislike the Germans, for using such methods. Do the names Guernica or Coventry ring a bell?

QUOTE

No - of course the US is the Lamb...

Never said that. The conflict was and still is mainly between North and South Korea.
Look it up, you will see who was the aggressor and who was the one aggressed.

[Victor]

QUOTE

It is obvious that North Korea is more threatened by an invasion than is USA. So proportionally, you cannot compare US's military investments with Pyongiang's

It is true that to the US, North Korea is less threatening than vice-versa, but the US is present in many other locations on the globe, so it is threatened by more enemies than North Korea. So things are practically the same. Both the US and North Korean governments invest in their military to preserve their power.

QUOTE

But when I think about it... I don't care if the Americans spend or not money for their army...

Need I refresh your memory?

QUOTE

You know, there are hundreds of problems that humans are facing today in the world, and I think that with that money, many things could change in better...

QUOTE

Those kind of opinions 'give water to the American mill'... Are there American troops in Korea or Korean troops in America?

You seem to forget that Korea is not North Korea, but there is also a South Korea, which did not invest all its resources in the army and presently its people are not starving. I wonder why? :roll: The Americans are there to help in the defense country. N. Korea has invaded before. What makes you think they would not do it again?

QUOTE

Their action is no more nationalist, but internationalist

Internationalist, why? Do you think they invaded Irak for the sake of the Iraqi people or to serve their own national interest?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Look it up, you will see who was the aggressor and who was the one aggressed.

I might add that this one didn't even require the usual long convoluted talks at the UN. You could hardly come up with a more texbook case of agression. The Russians made a big blunder by not vetoing. But given the worldwide outrage I wonder if that would have made a difference. In the worst case the US would have intervened alone. They did 95% of the work anyway.

[mabadesc]

Changing gears a bit and getting back to post-war Irak, I found in some military archives a letter from Eisenhower to Roosevelt, dated March 1945, in which he doubts that Hitler will surrender and therefore makes some suggestions regarding on how the Allied forces should deal with continued isolated/partisan fighting in Germany.
The letter struck me as relevant given the US/UK's current situation in Irak. Hope you find it interesting.

GENERAL EISENHOWER'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A GERMAN SURRENDER
March 31, 1945
New York Times.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
The further this campaign progresses, the more probable it appears that there will never be a clean-cut military surrender of the forces on the Western Front. Our experience to date is that even when formations as small as a division are disrupted their fragments continue to fight until surrounded. This attitude if continued, will likely mean that a V-E Day will come about only by proclamation on our part rather than by any definite and decisive collapse or surrender of German resistance.
Projecting this idea further, it would mean that eventually all the areas in which fragments of the German Army, particularly the paratrooper, Panzer and SS elements may be located, will have to be taken by the application of or the threat of force. This would lead into a form of guerrilla warfare which would require for its suppression a very large number of troops.
Of course, if the Government of Germany or any group that could take over a political control would make a national surrender, then all armed bodies remaining in the field would, in my opinion, no longer be classed as soldiers of a recognized government, but would occupy the status of brigands or pirates. Since, if captured under these conditions, they would not be entitled to protection afforded by the laws of war, it is my conviction that, except for extreme fanatics, they would largely surrender.
But so long as any of the Hitler gang retains a semblance of political power I believe the effort will be to continue resistance not only throughout Germany, but in all of the outlying areas, including the western port areas of France and Denmark and Norway.
To counteract this eventuality our local propaganda stations are constantly pointing out to the Germans that they should now be planting crops for next winter's food instead of fighting. In addition, I am hopeful of launching operations at the proper time that should partially prevent a guerrilla control of any large area, such as the southern mountain bastion.
It is, of course, always possible that there might be in Germany a sudden upsurge of popular resentment against the war, which would lead to a much easier pacification than that described above. My opinion is based upon the supposition that our experience to date provides our best basis of future prediction. At best we should be prepared for the eventuality described.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

[PanzerKing]

QUOTE

You seem to forget that Korea is not North Korea, but there is also a South Korea, which did not invest all its resources in the army and presently its people are not starving. I wonder why? :roll: The Americans are there to help in the defense country. N. Korea has invaded before. What makes you think they would not do it again?

So true Victor! The only thing that is keeping the N. Koreans from invading all this time is fear of U.S. involvement and the realization that the U.S. will back the S. Koreans. If you fight S. Korea, you fight the U.S. as well.

[Chandernagore]

Exerpt from independant.co.uk :

George Bush poured fuel on the flames of the Iraq contracts dispute yesterday with a sneering dismissal of a suggestion by the German Chancellor that the decision to bar Germany, France Russia and Canada from bidding might violate international law.

"International law? I'd better call my lawyer," the American President joked in response to a reporter's question at the White House.

Gerhard Schröder had spoken earlier after a meeting in Berlin with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general. Mr Annan called the decision by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, "unfortunate" and likely to damage attempts to rebuild transatlantic ties bruised by disagreement over the war. The EU is examining the legality of the US moves to stop countries that had not participated in the war from bidding for the $18.6bn (£10.7bn) of contracts, on vague "national security" grounds.

Democrats seized on the episode as further evidence of Bush diplomatic blundering. "How do we get a coalition together when we're putting it out on a government website that a country like Canada is a national security risk to the United States?" Marty Meehan, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, said.

I will permit myself to depart from my natural neutrality leenings and feelings : Bush is an imbecile. Whenever you have an array of available options you can count on him to choose the worst. In effect, what his admin has just done is definitevely loosing all "leverage" (as one US ambassador put it) on EU countries.

I don't think there was much of a rush from EU countries to get contracts anyway but barring them flatly from any sort of ordinary commercial relations with Irak is to make Irak appear for what it has really become : a US protectorate where the voice of the Iraki has as much importance as that of the women under the Taliban. If you don't agree, call your lawyer. Yeah, that's what a Pinochet or a Pol Pot could have said to the victims rotting in their jails.

This must be all part of the global Bush doctrine – maximise the damage –so that when he has to go crawling back to the Europeans to stave off trade sanctions he’ll be in the weakest possible position. The guy now managed to ensure maximum political opposition from EU to *any* of his policies as long as he sits in the white house. He painted a nice target on his own head.

All the rest of the world needs to do is to take care not to get dragged down into the mud pit where Dubya and his admin are clearly headed. It’s becoming increasingly obvious to many that there is really no point in trying to cooperate with a political regime that has non-cooperation as integral and essential part of it’s ideology.

I truly wonder how much more damage Bush will inflict on America's image and diplomatic position in the world before his own horrified compadres kick him out of office...


Next time I have a choice between a Ford and a Renault, I know what to buy. I can't vote with my feet but I can vote with my wallet.