General Says U.S. Has Proof Iran Arming Iraqi Militias

You are on a military forum by choice and choose to disrespect the profession and choice of men who put their lives on the line for you? Ballsy.

You might hold an American passport but you are French and a civilian. You must be related to WNxRogue. Care to join his wall to wall counselling session, I'm more than willing to squeeze you in mate.

You dont understand the commitment and sacrifices the men and women in the military make so TI was not "wrong on all counts".

s-france.jpg
 
Last edited:
You are on a military forum by choice and choose to disrespect the profession and choice of men who put their lives on the line for you? Ballsy.

My family is 4 generations old of US ARMY, spitting on the US ARMY would be spitting on them. So I sincerely doubt that was what I was doing. In fact I was merely stating that as a civilian (unlike the military) I am not required to keep my mouth shut about what I think about the Commander of Chief. If I was wearing the uniform than I would keep my opinions about the CnC to myself. That's just a fact, not an insult. Its what we call the 1st amendment.
You might hold an American passport but you are French and a civilian. You must be related to WNxRogue. Care to join his wall to wall counselling session, I'm more than willing to squeeze you in mate.

I just LOVE it on when right wingers pass judgment on who is and isn't an American (especially on people they don't actually know). It reminds me of the 1930's in Germany when the Nazis were passing judgment on who was and wasn't a German citizen. It's funny how history often repeats itself isn't it? Similarly I would like to know your definition of who is French. Have you ever been a French citizen in this life or another? Thank you, I rest my case. The flag on the forum refers to LOCATION not nationality. If I switched to another location you couldn't guess if I were French, American, or Balinese.

I am not picking on you specifically Bulldogg, but the level of IGNORENCE+ARROGENCE (people who make grand judgements on other people about subjects and people they know zilch about) on this board by certain few members is simply unbelieveable. The US, France, History, Computers, US politics are subjects I know. What it is like to be a US soldier is not, thats why I don't make judgments about it. Its that simple.

You don't understand the commitment and sacrifices the men and women in the military make so TI was not "wrong on all counts".

Ditto I agree that I don't, and as I stated I wasn't claiming too either. As for the last part lets see, He was wrong on my nationality, he was wrong to say I don't have the right to criticize the president, and he was wrong on his US History 101. That's 3 out 3. Seems like everything to me, no?

Oh, the cartoon was cute. Inaccurate, but cute. It also reminds me about a certain forum rule about country bashing.

Besides, If France where irrelevant Bush wouldn't be brownosing Chirac's about getting his support on attacking Iran.
 
Last edited:
Bulldogg

Good one. I am serious. Its good to see one can laugh at oneself on this forum.

I don't know RnXRogue (haven't had the pleasure), maybe I should look him? Sounds like my type of guy!
 
Congratulations Mmarsh - Your're Wrong On All Counts.

..........
mmarsh said:
Team Infidel

Why can cannot you right-wingers understand this!
Click to expand...

I am not a right winger, and my political views are not the question here. What I am should not matter to you. What I am is an American Soldier and damn proud of it. And I am married to a European (dual citizen) who has different views than I do, so I do understand.


That's my right as an AMERICAN citizen, unlike you I am not in the military, and as a civilian, I don't have to kiss the president's butt. As I said, if you want to follow this train wreck be my guest, but most of us are getting off at the next stop.
Click to expand...

I kiss nobodys butt, not even my spouse. I don't need to. My actions speak louder than any words that can by typed here.

Finally, If you bothered to read a US history book like US History for Dummies (thats the real title of the book, not an insult) you know the score is tied (guy named Lefayette ring any bells?). If it weren't for France we would still be a colony of the British Empire so go enjoy your English tea and crumpets, while I munch my 'Pommes Frites'. That's French for French fries. it really means 'fried potatoes'. Freedom Fries is the idiot name given by ignorant right-wingers whom actually thought 'French Fries' were actually from France (they are from Belgium). and that the French would really care if they changed the name). I assure you, the only effect here was the bewilderment of how nasty and stupid certain people in Washington are.
Click to expand...


[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]French Military History in a Nutshell[/FONT] Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: 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.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over 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 ever since.

American Revolution: 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, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was 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.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to 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.

WWII: 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 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." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have a good one about used (slightly) French Army Rifles from World War II.
Although, I do know of the help France gave the Patriots to get our own Nation, without her I believe we would not have won the War, and it would have been that much tougher to break away afterwards.

And the French seem to have been proven correct about Iraq and the new War there, the new war in Iraq being the main reason people pick on France now days.
 
Gator said:
And the French seem to have been proven correct about Iraq and the new War there, the new war in Iraq being the main reason people pick on France now days.
Click to expand...

Whiskey tango foxtrot, over. Can you elucidate your response a bit I am really having a hard time understanding this sentence.
 
Team infidel

I can refute your points, but not here, too far OT. PM if you want to discuss.

Gator

You are absolutly right. This is not about anti-French feeling in the US. This is about a certain few people that cannot accept that the US was wrong and the French were right about Iraq. And it wasn't JUST the French but the overwhelming majority of nations. We should be learning from the mistakes of the past, instead we seem doing a reenactment in regards to Iran.

We have 'proof' of Iranian involvement
We have 'proof' of Iraqi WMD

Sound familiar anyone? And the few allies we have left (most notably the UK) have made it very clear that if the US attacks Iran we will do so alone. We have no troops, no funds, and no credibility to sanction such a adventure.

And another thing, the Iranians are ardent nationalists. They don't like Ahmadinejab, but if we stick our nose in thier country like Saddam did they will fight us. These are the decendants of ancient Persia they know how to fight, they will not be scared of us. It will make Baghdad look like a picnic.

Just for the record, I have NO doubt Iran is involved with the Shiite Militias. They would be stupid not to be involved. There are probably other behind-the-scenes players, as well Syria and Israel come to mind.

After the disaster in Iraq and increasing in Afganistan, why is this Administration spoiling for another fight? It seems more concentrated on Iran than winning the wars they already have.
 
Last edited:
bulldogg said:
Whiskey tango foxtrot, over. Can you elucidate your response a bit I am really having a hard time understanding this sentence.
Click to expand...

No, I'm going to agree with the Major, and say that this Thread has, in my opinion, gone off the reservation.
 
First off the French had alternative motives during our revolution and yes they may have helped but we still would have done it on our own since England was in a midst of a few battles at the time...Plus they really didn't help all that much but go ahead and blow their minor role way out of proportion....France came in at the tale end of the Revolution, but all that aside I would say that after WWII we are even ;)

Furthermore on Iraq France was partaking in actions that went against the UN and possibly international law in its dealings with Iraq. This has been in the news but for some reason it just dissapread...That is why France did not want us in their in the first place....

On to the WMD, we knew they where there just like the rest of the world did because we SOLD them to SADDAM back in the day...the questions is where did they go....
 
mmarsh said:
We have 'proof' of Iranian involvement
Click to expand...

Uh, we do. I know folks back home won't believe it from us silly dumbasses that keep boots on the ground because we aren't reporters, but we have it and plenty of it.
 
Donkey said:
First off the French had alternative motives during our revolution and yes they may have helped but we still would have done it on our own since England was in a midst of a few battles at the time...Plus they really didn't help all that much but go ahead and blow their minor role way out of proportion....France came in at the tale end of the Revolution, but all that aside I would say that after WWII we are even ;)

Thats not what most historians say. Most say France entry into the war swung the pendulem away from the Brits to the colonists. But lets stay on topic...
Furthermore on Iraq France was partaking in actions that went against the UN and possibly international law in its dealings with Iraq. This has been in the news but for some reason it just dissapread...That is why France did not want us in their in the first place....

Already answered this. Yes they were, so what? All countries deal with dictators illegally and all protect their own interests. We did the very same thing in South America during the 1980's. France isn't alone. There where even some small American private oil companies in Texas as well who were also operating illegally as well.

But here is why your reasoning fails:

Clandesdine business make a pittance compared to a legal business. It is far more profitable and safer to operate legally than illegally. Thats true in ANY Business. Companies only operate illegally if they have no other option to do so legally. (which was the case in Iraq, due to the embargo).

If France's motives were purely greed (as you claim) wouldn't it make sense that they would have joined the invasion and reap the rewards just like Halliburton and Bachtel did? (Bush made it clear that those who joined the war would enjoy its spoils and visa versa).

Halliburton can operate openly in Iraq and as a result, its profits have dwarfed in a LEGAL Fashion (about $4 Billion), what the French were pulling in in a ILLEGAL manner. By refusing to participate in the war, the French lost every investment in Iraq and they knew they would, because in global business, your goal is to chase out the competition.

Think about that, your explanation makes no sense.

So why did they refuse? Because they knew the price in blood would outweigh the potential profits. French society is different to the USA. Here, the population absolutly HATES Globalization\Big Business. In the US, most people are indifferent. The public would have Guillotined Chirac on the spot if a French company similar to Halliburton were making huge profits at the cost of French soldiers lives. It would have been the end of the Government.

On to the WMD, we knew they where there just like the rest of the world did because we SOLD them to SADDAM back in the day...the questions is where did they go....

That was explained over an over. They weapons we had were destroyed sometime after 1991. There were a few leftovers but that were in such a bad shape they were unusable. Believe me, if they were there, Bush would have found them ages ago.

PM me if you want to reply, I don't want to Hijack the thread. Seriously, this is my last post on this subject on this thread.

PJ24 (back to Topic)

We Missed you around here, How are you?

You missed the point (reread 2nd to last paragraph in 2nd to last post). I am absolutely positive Iran IS involved. I don't deny that. Iran has been messing around in Iraqi Shiites affairs for decades. Its not exactly a huge surprise.

My point is that despite this obviousness. The Administration is giving us the same old song and dance as they did in 2003. And the reason they are doing so is not to simply to state the obvious, but to attempt and garner political support for there true objective: A military invasion of Iran.

The neocons have not yet abandoned their dream of gun-barrel democracy. The people I feel sorry for are people like you (and specifically a l friend of mine, now stationed in Iraq), who might wind up having to go to Gulf War Part III.

Leave Iran to the Sunnis whom will be backed by our "friends" the Sunni Saudis and their "friends" known as al Qaeda.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Leave Iran to the Sunnis whom will be backed by our "friends" the Sunni Saudis and their "friends" known as al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Wave the white flag you say??

And simply trade the impoverished training grounds of Afghanistan for the oil rich training grounds of Iraq for our terrorist "friends" (as you call them)? I cannot abide that decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top