World War related bickering

[BDL]

@IRONMAN

Yea, and without the US, WWI and WWII would have been much nastier for Britain and France. So what’s your point? I see none.

WW1 only had a few months left when the US entered the war, the Germans spent all of their remaining offensive power in a last attack on British and French positions, which was initially successful but was eventually stopped by an organised British and French defence based on a river and some towns (I can’t remember the name of the town or the river, I was watching a Discovery program about it not long ago).
WW2 wouldn’t have been any more difficult for France without America, since they had already been overrun when the US joined the war. They have ended up being occupied for longer, but even without US involvement, the UK and USSR would still have won the war in the end. Britain was already secure from invasion by the time the US entered the war, so our war wouldn’t have been all that much different, except that D-Day would probably never have happened.

What’s your point? Are you still trying to support the idea that the US contributing 1 million men to WWI is not significant? What are you actually talking about? What point, other than to try to find an angle for complaining about the US,l are you trying to make? None. You are just talking in circles around the US like a vulture, looking for something to criticize. Be a descent person. Stop. Haven’t you expressed your disdain for the US enough times in these threads already? Must you try to turn yet another thread into something critical of the US? Are you so driven by this? How can someone be so bent on something so worthless and pointless?

Let me tell you this: If you think that you are going to alter in any way an American’s love of his country with all of your whining and criticisms, you are sorely mistaken. It only furthers the resolve that Americans have in supporting their nation. You are wasting your time kiddo. What you are attempting to do cannot be accomplished. Truly.

My point is the one I have been making all along - that by the standards of the day, when the British Army was 8,000,000 strong and the French Army even larger, when the British Army suffered 1,000,000 casualties and the French Army more, 1,000,000 soldiers is not all that significant a contribution. I don’t care about how you feel about your country. I’m not complaining about the US, I’m saying that they did not make as much of a contribution as you seem to think. I’m not turning any thread into anything about the US, I don’t care about the US one way or the other.
If you truly believe that anything I can say on a message board could possibly affect how anyone feels about their country, then that says more about the person changing their mind than me. I’m not attempting anything.

Yes, the Iraqi people are glad to be free from Saddam. You don’t get the news do you.

I don’t need to get the news, I get the six months at a time in that shithole instead. Now, I asked you earlier what your personal experiences of Iraq (:lol:) were, because I know for a fact you’ve never been within a thousand miles of the place - please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore your opinion on Iraq is irrelevant, it means nothing. People do not shoot at you while you drive through a city because they are pleased to see you, they do not bomb your convoys and camps because they are pleased to see you, they do not launch mortars and Katyusha rockets at you because they are pleased to see you, they do not fill their cars with explosives and detonate them as they drive past you because they are pleased to see you. THE IRAQIS WANT US OUT, THAT IS WHY THEY KEEP KILLING US.

And your mind is twisted by the media into believing that your country and mine are doing a bad thing. So much so that you, and ex-soldier, even believes it. There should come a time in a man’s life when he is able to break free of the influence of the liberal media and think more for himself and see the bigger picture. Your time has not yet come, it seems.

I believe very little of what I see in the media, I’ve seen the truth on the ground. I’m not an ex-soldier, I’m a serving soldier. I’m on a course until January then I will be posted back to the field army, where I will doubtlessly experience the joy of more tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to sort out the shit that Blair and Bush have got us into.

Interesting though that you should cite the ‘liberal media’ as being some kind of negative influence. I’m a Daily Mail reader, any of the Brits on here will tell you how ‘liberal’ the Mail is. I’m not influenced by the media though, because as I’ve said, I’ve seen the truth on the ground, have you? :lol:

[pdf27]

@IRONMAN

What’s your point? Are you still trying to support the idea that the US contributing 1 million men to WWI is not significant? What are you actually talking about? What point, other than to try to find an angle for complaining about the US,l are you trying to make? None. You are just talking in circles around the US like a vulture, looking for something to criticize. Be a descent person. Stop. Haven’t you expressed your disdain for the US enough times in these threads already? Must you try to turn yet another thread into something critical of the US? Are you so driven by this? How can someone be so bent on something so worthless and pointless?

No, his point is actually referring to the (genuinely hateful IMHO) statement you posted earlier in this thread which you have since refused to acknowledge the existence of. To wit:

@IRONMAN

Sure it is. We sent them to defend another nation, not our own. It’s astounding alright. An astounding contribution and sacrifice. If you cannot appreciate that, then you are beyone help. When was the last time Britain or France sent 1 million men to defend another nation? Oh wait! NEVER!

You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

[system]

@Crab_to_be

I am still interested to hear why you think an extended Battle of France would have hastened America’s entry into the war or allowed the UK to magic up another British Army for deployment to France. Why you think they needed to be landed in Normandy is beyond me.

An extended battle would have hastened America’s entering of the war? I don’t get it. That does not make sence. I never said or alluded to such a thing. What I did say was that without the 1 million men the US sent to WWI, things would have been somewhat different. Perhaps a lot more Europeans would have died, the war may have lasted much longer, and the outcome might even have been different. Who knows. A million men is quite a force. it’s certainly something significant, that’s for certain.

[BDL]

@WARDODGER

France was not defeated in WWII by a doctrine. They were defeated so easily by poor military leadership. They did not mobilize their army to the noth where the Germans were bypassing the Maginot Line. This cost them everything until D-Day. Had they had better leadership, they might have staved off the German invasion at least long enough for the US, British, Canadian, and Aussie troops to land in Normandy to help out.

Crab has been referring to this statement you made in all of his replies, WARDODGER. He has never mentioned WW1 in any of his posts.

[system]

@BDL

WW1 only had a few months left when the US entered the war, the Germans spent all of their remaining offensive power in a last attack on British and French positions, which was initially successful but was eventually stopped by an organised British and French defence based on a river and some towns (I can’t remember the name of the town or the river, I was watching a Discovery program about it not long ago).
WW2 wouldn’t have been any more difficult for France without America, since they had already been overrun when the US joined the war. They have ended up being occupied for longer, but even without US involvement, the UK and USSR would still have won the war in the end. Britain was already secure from invasion by the time the US entered the war, so our war wouldn’t have been all that much different, except that D-Day would probably never have happened.

That is not completely accurate.

The US was in WWI for 1 year. Germany made several of it’s most important offenses during this time, which were defeated partly because the US toops were badly needed to replace depleted British and French forces:

The Spring Offensive

Operation Michael

Operation Georgette

Operation Blucher

Operation Yorck

The American troops were critical to holding back the advancing Germans because of the depletion of British and French forces:

“The frontline had now moved to within 120 kilometres of Paris. Krupp railway guns advanced to fire 183 shells on Paris. The initial stages of the offensive were so successful that Wilhelm II declared March 24 a national holiday.”

The American troops played an important role in the the pushing of German forces back, marking an end to the war:

“However, after a few days the offensive had slowed down— British Empire units had encountered problems with all but seven of their 414 tanks. On 15 August 1918, Haig called an end to the offensive and began to plan for an offensive in Albert. That offensive came on August 21. Some 130,000 United States troops were involved, along with soldiers from British Third and Fourth Armies. The offensive was an overwhelming success. The German Second Army had been pushed back over a 55 kilometre front. The town of Bapaume was captured on August 29 and by September 2, the Germans had been forced back to the Hindenburg Line.”

The American forces under Pershing made sure the Germans could not launch another offensive, and virtually finished-off the Germans:

“Pershing continued to pound the exhausted and bewildered Germans without relent for all of October along the Meuse-Argonne front. This would continue until the end of the war.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWI

So you see, you did not have an accurate account of WWI. The American contribution to the war quite significant, and because British awnd French troops were largely depleted, the American forces gave the Allies the push needed to halt the several and powerful German offenses of the last year of the war, and to conclude it. Without the American contribution, the war would have lasted noticably longer, and cost many thousands more of British and French lives.

Please, now that you know more about it, as do I from having investigated it more deeply, don’t tell anyone that the US contribution to WWI was not significant. It was much more than significant.

@BDL

I don’t need to get the news, I get the six months at a time in that shithole instead.

Well, then get better news. The Iraqi people are greatful. Sure they want us out, but they do not have the leadership, exoperience, or military expertize to realize that leaving them with such weak ofrces of their own would mean either failure or a much longer strife against the insurgents.

I don’t care what your VIEWS on Iraq are. But the Iraqi people are indeed greatful. They have never stopped expressing it.

@BDL

I’m on a course until January then I will be posted back to the field army, where I will doubtlessly experience the joy of more tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to sort out the shit that Blair and Bush have got us into.

:lol: Yea, right. You’ll try to sort it out. No my boy. You’ll be toting a rifle and taking orders. You’ll be fighting for the freedom of millions of people in their own country. Don’t forget that young man. You are fighting for a nation’s freedom from oppression. let it be burned into your conciousness.

Oh, and make sure to tell your CO that you think the US and Britain are not wanted there by the Iraqis. Tell him also that you think you should leave. Let us know what he tells you. Try telling him on one of his good days though, else you might find yourself doing a lot of gofer work and being retrained when you get stateside. I’m sure they have a coarse on moral and “hearts and minds” or such. :lol:

@BDL

Interesting though that you should cite the ‘liberal media’ as being some kind of negative influence. I’m a Daily Mail reader, any of the Brits on here will tell you how ‘liberal’ the Mail is. I’m not influenced by the media though, because as I’ve said, I’ve seen the truth on the ground, have you? :lol:

Well there you have it. As I suspected. You read slanted liberal media rags. What did I say.

Now remember what you have learned about WWI and America’s contribution. Go in peace my son. May God bless your USA dartboard.

[system]

@BDL

[quote=WARDODGER]France was not defeated in WWII by a doctrine. They were defeated so easily by poor military leadership. They did not mobilize their army to the noth where the Germans were bypassing the Maginot Line. This cost them everything until D-Day. Had they had better leadership, they might have staved off the German invasion at least long enough for the US, British, Canadian, and Aussie troops to land in Normandy to help out.

Crab has been referring to this statement you made in all of his replies, WARDODGER. He has never mentioned WW1 in any of his posts.[/quote]

Thanks for posting it again. At least I know now that you read it and it made an impact on you.

[Dani]

@IRONMAN

That is not completely accurate.

The US was in WWI for 1 year. Germany made several of it’s most important offenses during this time, which were defeated partly because the US toops were badly needed to replace depleted British and French forces.

Inaccurate.

Significant numbers of American troops only arrived in Europe in the summer of 1918.
Quoted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWI

[Dani]

@IRONMAN

[quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bla bla bla bla! Bla bla bla, bla bla, bla bla!

Bla bla, bla bla bla!? Bla bla bla? Bla! Bla bla bla bvla bla!!![/quote]

Please stop posting like this, IRONMAN!

[PzKpfw_VI_Tiger]

@Dani

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bla bla bla bla! Bla bla bla, bla bla, bla bla!

Bla bla, bla bla bla!? Bla bla bla? Bla! Bla bla bla bvla bla!!![/quote]

Please stop posting like this, IRONMAN![/quote]

I agree, your post will be deleted.

[system]

@Dani

[quote=IRONMAN]That is not completely accurate.

The US was in WWI for 1 year. Germany made several of it’s most important offenses during this time, which were defeated partly because the US toops were badly needed to replace depleted British and French forces.

Inaccurate.

Significant numbers of American troops only arrived in Europe in the summer of 1918.
Quoted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWI [/quote]

The US declared war on Germany 1 year before the end of the war. However, despite the fact that US troops arrived in 1918 does not change the history of what happened after they arrived or their contribution thereafter. Read my previous post again to learn about it.

[system]

@"IRONMAN"

[quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bullhockey. I have never posted a lie in a forum, any forum. You’re spouting diarea.

[Dani]

@IRONMAN

The US declared war on Germany 1 year before the end of the war. However, despite the fact that US troops arrived in 1918 does not change the history of what happened after they arrived or their contribution thereafter. Read my previous post again to learn about it.

Quoted from beloved wiki:
President Woodrow Wilson requested that the U.S. Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917 (see: Woodrow Wilson declares war on Germany on Wikisource). The Senate approved the war resolution 82-6, the House with 373-50. Wilson hoped a separate peace could be achieved with Austria-Hungary, however when it kept its loyalty to Germany, the US declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917. End quote.

How comes???

Also quoted:
Although the American contribution to the war was important, particularly in terms of the threat posed by increased US presence in Europe, the United States was never formally a member of the Entente, but an “Associated Power”. Significant numbers of American troops only arrived in Europe in the summer of 1918.

My emboldment shows what it is written in wiki IRONMAN!!!

Wilson has right! Isolationism it isn’t an option (see also WW2). It was a proper time for USA back in 1917-1918 to flex his muscles in Europe.

Personally I thank USA for his role in WW2 but I am very sad about American GIs died in WW2. They died for what???

Edited for emboldment.

[Dani]

@"IRONMAN"

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bullhockey. I have never posted a lie in a forum, any forum. You’re spouting diarea.[/quote]

IRONMAN I promised you a week or so ago that will be no more informal warning from me. I break my word and I give you one more. Also it is one of your last chances to calm down and stop insulting others.

[BDL]

@IRONMAN

That is not completely accurate.<snip>

Please, now that you know more about it, as do I from having investigated it more deeply, don’t tell anyone that the US contribution to WWI was not significant. It was much more than significant.

What is so hard for you to understand here? Great Britain had 8,000,000 men under arms, France probably more. Let’s say a combined total of 16,000,000, for the sake of this argument. How significant is 1,000,000 in the grand scheme of things? It is a big numbers of troops by todays standards, and did help to finish the war quicker, but those 1,000,000 men weren’t even equipped properly when they got to France. They were not as significant as you seem to think.

Well, then get better news. The Iraqi people are greatful. Sure they want us out, but they do not have the leadership, exoperience, or military expertize to realize that leaving them with such weak ofrces of their own would mean either failure or a much longer strife against the insurgents.

I don’t care what your VIEWS on Iraq are. But the Iraqi people are indeed greatful. They have never stopped expressing it.

When were they expressing it? In between mortaring Camp Cherokee (where I was) 5 or 6 times a day, Basra Palace 4 or 5 times a day, Old State Buildings 5 or 6 times a day, Basra Airport a once a day, Al-Amarah god alone knows how many times (they were having up to 150 contacts A DAY at one point) and every other British camp as well? Then we get onto how many times a day the Americans get attacked up in Baghdad.

You know fuck all about Iraq, because you have never been.
You do not shoot at, RPG, mortar, katyusha and bomb people you are happy to see and want to stay in your country. The insurgents are there because of us, they are our fault. We caused all of the trouble in Iraq. We invaded there, for no reason, we had no plan on how to run the country once we had beaten them, then we sent most of our combat troops home. It is all our fault.

:lol: Yea, right. You’ll try to sort it out. No my boy. You’ll be toting a rifle and taking orders. You’ll be fighting for the freedom of millions of people in their own country. Don’t forget that young man. You are fighting for a nation’s freedom from oppression. let it be burned into your conciousness.

Well, that makes it all right then. I’ll tell them we’re fighting for their freedom and they might stop shelling us for a bit. :roll:

Oh, and make sure to tell your CO that you think the US and Britain are not wanted there by the Iraqis. Tell him also that you think you should leave. Let us know what he tells you. Try telling him on one of his good days though, else you might find yourself doing a lot of gofer work and being retrained when you get stateside. I’m sure they have a coarse on moral and “hearts and minds” or such. :lol:

If you can find me one British soldier who actually wants to be in Iraq, from the GOC of MND(SE) down to the Toms on the front gate, I’d be shocked.

Well there you have it. As I suspected. You read slanted liberal media rags. What did I say.

Ah, the slanted, liberal Daily Mail. It was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of GB up until 1987 I believe, when they decided that the Commies were just too right wing for them

[pdf27]

@IRONMAN

[quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bullhockey. I have never posted a lie in a forum, any forum. You’re spouting diarea.[/quote]

You posted the following statement:

@IRONMAN

Sure it is. We sent them to defend another nation, not our own. It’s astounding alright. An astounding contribution and sacrifice. If you cannot appreciate that, then you are beyone help. When was the last time Britain or France sent 1 million men to defend another nation? Oh wait! NEVER!

This is demonstrably incorrect when referring to either world war. This therefore leaves us with two choices:

1. You know it is incorrect, and so are lying.
2. You have no idea that it is incorrect, which in turn implies you are completely clueless about both world wars.

If your first statement (about having never lied on a forum) is correct, you are displaying a breathtaking ignorance of even the simplest historical facts about either world war. If the first statement is incorrect, then it itself is another lie and you are aware of the truth but choose to ignore it for the sake of your arguament. I’m not sure which is worse.

Edited to fix codes

[Firefly]

@"IRONMAN"

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=pdf27]You are posting stuff which IMHO you have to know is a deliberate tissue of lies to bait people, and that last statement was particularly unpleasant.

Bullhockey. I have never posted a lie in a forum, any forum. You’re spouting diarea.[/quote]

Im sorry, but this has to be your funniest post for a while…

Never posted a lie LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Bladensburg]

You know lads, I’m beginning to suspect that Ironman is either a) More than one person posting under the same username or b) A complete nutter with more than one personality. These would seem to be the only possible explanations for his apparent inability to recall all that he has previously posted and his curious ability to argue on two different areas in the same thread (such as both WWI and WWII) and yet seemingly have no knowledge of having posted in one or other of these areas when challenged.

[Firefly]

Well thats him to a tee isnt it.

He is the multi thread, multi subject poster par excellence.

What, answer a direct question, thats anti-american blathering bullhockey kiddo!

[pdf27]

@BDL

Ah, the slanted, liberal Daily Mail. It was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of GB up until 1987 I believe, when they decided that the Commies were just too right wing for them

Do you think Ironman realises that the Daily Mail probably regards Bush as a dangerous socialist?

[Firefly]

I think Bush may be a Libertanian!