PDA

View Full Version : The Horrors of War


BlueWolf
7th Dec 2004, 06:46
I was sent what follows below, and felt compelled to share it. I considered putting this up in the Mil forum, but I feel it will be better here. Perhaps the Mods may regard it differently; if so, then so be it.

My apologies for not posting this in the politics thread. I don't believe that this is about politics.

My apologies also for the cut and paste. I have never believed that America had any justification for going into Iraq; other than that, as I have stated many times, here and elsewhere, Saddam Hussein is/was a psychopathic genocidal fascist thug who needed got rid of. But that, of course, is not why America went to Iraq.
However the reality of being "wounded in action" remains for those described below. They went to war because that was their job, that was what they signed up for. That was what they were paid for and that was what we expected them to do.

But I doubt that many folk understand the realities and repercussions of what being "wounded in action" means today.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of a particular action, soldiers who go to war on behalf of "The West" today, face an enemy armed with more than just religious or nationalistic fervour, or with righteous indignation.They face an enemy armed with large-calibre personal weapons.

In the West, we have abandoned the .30-calibre concept, in favour of the .223 format. In the nations which were, and which armed, those who constitute our enemies today, the .30 calibre is still the weapon of choice.

The arguments between those who favoured the 5.56mm and those who wished to retain the 7.62mm still rage. The concept behind the 5.56mm (.223) was that the weapons were smaller, lighter, and thus more easily carried by little soldiers, women, and America's Asian allies, than were the large, heavy, .308 calibre firearms which preceded them.
.223 rifles are also easier to fire accurately, as they have far lower recoil than larger calibres.
In addition to this, it was thought that the smaller rounds would cause more injuries than deaths, the advantage of this being that an injury to an enemy soldier would not only remove him from the battle field, but also neutralise the two other soldiers who would be required to look after him.

However, when faced with an enemy who feels no compunction to attend his wounded companion (as our own Special Forces are trained to behave), this consideration is negated.
And most of our own people are not small soldiers, women, or Asians; in New Zealand, as in the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada, most of our soldiers are big brown men and big white men, eminently capable of carrying big heavy rifles.
These rifles - assault rifles - kill people. When they wound, they wound horribly. The comparisons between the .223 rifles used by most Western forces, and the .308 rifles used by most of the enemies they face, is stark.

Shoot a man in the forearm with a .223 (5.56mm), and you will make a hole in his forearm. Shoot him in the forearm with a .308 (7.62mm), and you will likely take his arm off at the shoulder.

Likewise, a .223 round may deflect off a twig in the forest, and miss the target; a .308 round will go clean through a tree trunk (up to about 4 - 6 inches diameter) and kill the person hiding behind it.

My point to all this, echoing what is said in the included article, is that the horror of being wounded in action is not acurately represented in the sanitised version of the news we receive from war zones today. My gripe is twofold; firstly, that we need to be better aware of the consequences of war, for those who we send away to carry it out in our name; and secondly, that we need to better equip those same people to deal with, and counter, the threats which they are most likely to face.

Regards

BW






December 4, 2004
The observant will have noticed that we hear little from the troops in Iraq and see almost nothing of the wounded. Why, one might wonder, does not CNN put an enlisted Marine before a camera and, for fifteen minutes without editing, let him say what he thinks? Is he not an adult and a citizen? Is he not engaged in important events on our behalf?

Sound political reasons exist. Soldiers are a risk PR-wise, the wounded a liability. No one can tell what they might say, and conspicuous dismemberment is bad for recruiting. An enlisted man in front of a camera is dangerous. He could wreck the governmental spin apparatus in five minutes. It is better to keep soldiers discreetly out of sight.

So we do not see much of the casualties, ours or theirs. Yet they are there, are somewhere, with missing legs, blind, becoming accustomed to groping at things in their new darkness, learning to use the wheelchairs that will be theirs for fifty years. Some face worse fates than others. Quadriplegics will be warehoused in VA hospitals where nurses will turn them at intervals, like hamburgers, to prevent bedsores. Friends and relatives will soon forget them. Suicide will be a frequent thought. The less damaged will get around.

For a brief moment perhaps the casualties will believe, then try desperately to keep believing, that they did something brave and worthy and terribly important for that abstraction, country. Some will even expect thanks. There will be no thanks, or few, and those quickly forgotten. It will be worse. People will ask how they lost the leg. In Iraq, they will say, hoping for sympathy, or respect, or understanding. The response, often unvoiced but unmistakable, will be, “What did you do that for?” The wounded will realize that they are not only crippled, but freaks.

The years will go by. Iraq will fade into the mist. Wars always do. A generation will rise for whom it will be just history. The dismembered veterans will find first that almost nobody appreciates what they did, then that few even remember it. If—when, many would say—the United States is driven out of Iraq, the soldiers will look back and realize that the whole affair was a fraud. Wars are just wars. They seem important at the time. At any rate, we are told that they are important.

Yet the wounds will remain. Arms do not grow back. For the paralyzed there will never be girlfriends, dancing, rolling in the grass with children. The blind will adapt as best they can. Those with merely a missing leg will count themselves lucky. They will hobble about, managing to lead semi-normal lives, and people will say, “How well he handles it.” An admirable freak. For others it will be less good. A colostomy bag is a sorry companion on a wedding night.

These men will come to hate. It will not be the Iraqis they hate. This we do not talk about.

It is hard to admit that one has been used. Some of the crippled will forever insist that the war was needed, that they were protecting their sisters from an Islamic invasion, or Vietnamese, or Chinese. Others will keep quiet and drink too much. Still others will read, grow older and wiser—and bitter. They will remember that their vice president, a man named Cheney, said that during his war, the one in Asia, he “had other priorities.” The veterans will remember this when everyone else has long since forgotten Cheney.

I once watched the first meeting between a young Marine from the South, blind, much of his face shot away, and his high school sweetheart who had come from Tennessee to Bethesda Naval Hospital to see him.

Hatred comes easily.

There are wounds and there are wounds. A friend of mine spent two tours in Asia in that war now little remembered. He killed many people, not all of them soldiers. It is what happens in wars. The memory haunts him. Jack is a hard man from a tough neighborhood, quick with his fists, intelligent but uneducated—not a liberal flower vain over his sensitivity. He lives in Mexican bars few would enter and has no politics beyond an anger toward government.

He was not a joyous killer. He remembers what he did, knows now that he was had. It gnaws at him. One is wise to stay away from him when he is drinking.

People say that this war isn’t like Viet Nam. They are correct. Washington fights its war in Iraq with no better understanding of Iraq than it had of Viet Nam, but with much better understanding of the United States. The Pentagon learned from Asia. This time around it has controlled the press well. Here is the great lesson of Southeast Asia: The press is dangerous, not because it is inaccurate, which it often is, but because it often isn’t.

So we don’t much see the caskets—for reasons of privacy, you understand.

The war in Iraq is fought by volunteers, which means people that no one in power cares about. No one in the mysteriously named “elite” gives a damn about some kid from a town in Tennessee that has one gas station and a beer hall with a stuffed buck’s head. Such a kid is a redneck at best, pretty much from another planet, and certainly not someone you would let your daughter date. If conscription came back, and college students with rich parents learned to live in fear of The Envelope, riots would blossom as before. Now Yale can rest easy. Thank God for throwaway people.

The nearly perfect separation between the military and the rest of the country, or at least the influential in the country, is wonderful for the war effort. It prevents concern. How many people with a college degree even know a soldier? Yes, some, and I will get email from them, but they are a minority. How many Americans have been on a military base? Or, to be truly absurd, how many men in combat arms went to, say, Harvard?

Ah, but they have other priorities.

In fifteen years in Washington I knew many, many reporters and intellectuals and educated people. Almost none had worn boots. So it is. Those who count do not have to go, and do not know anyone who has gone, and don’t interest themselves. There is a price for this, though not one Washington cares about. Across America, in places where you might not expect it—in Legion halls and VFW posts, among those who carry membership cards from the Disabled American Veterans—there are men who hate. They don’t hate America. They hate those who sent them. Talk to the wounded from Iraq in five years.

Flip Flop Flyer
7th Dec 2004, 11:46
Alot of good can be said of a fully professional army. Less good of a professional army from a society with enormous social differences.

Alot of bad can be said of a conscript army, but at least it ensures that a broad spectrum of the society is represented.

allan907
7th Dec 2004, 15:44
No war is nice. Never has been, never will be. But so long as humans walk this planet war will always be with us. That is a bald fact. No amount of pacifist rhetoric will take away the fact that human beings get angry with other human beings and wish to do them harm. There will always be the human wreckage of this destructive human trait. Society will always try to do the best it can for the casualties of war but, human nature being what it is and memories being so short then the casualties may be forgotten - particularly by the following generation.

With that in mind, one is reminded of the first rule of war. A rule which has stood the test of centuries and which is ignored at your peril:

Selection and maintenance of the aim

In layman speak it means hit hard, hit fast, with every bit of firepower at your command, and keep going until you succeed in your intention. Anything less is a betrayal of the forces under your command and your country.

And the reason that the USA fu**ed up royally in Vietnam? They forgot rule number 1 and bowed to the pressure of public opinion which was primarily responsible for the sick and forgotten injured from that war.

And yes, I've been in a shooting war that no-one remembers any more - Aden.

autosync
7th Dec 2004, 15:51
It seems so hard for some "middle class" people to comprehend why some others join in the military.
It seems so hard to understand why people think think that honour/ duty and courage are paramount traits in some peoples character, this is not often thought in private fee paying schools, its something learned in the early days in a schoolyard, you know who will back you up if you are in trouble and they know that you will be there for them.

This may seem inconceivable to those who are to scared to do anything, and want to continue living the easy life of secure pensions wife kids where the biggest problem you can expect to face is when you hit your midlife crises and go and do the dirty on your wife and get caught.
So they try and make out that those in the military are there cause they are poor and uneducated.
They imply this cause they are to chicken shit to do it themselves!

storl tern
20th Dec 2004, 05:34
Since time began if you didn't want your territory/ideals/lifestyle subjugated then your best insurance was a strong defensive/offensive capability. Everyone must stand up to be counted or put up with a second rate life (just ask the French/Belgians/Norwegians/Malayans/Burmese etc etc etc)

chuks
20th Dec 2004, 08:29
The predominant calibre in use today must the 7.65mm round used in the AK47.

A lot of what was written in that preface is just pseudo-technical rubbish. A .308 round can go through a 4-inch tree and kill the man hiding behind it? And a wound from a .223 shouldn't be as bad as one from a .308? Just which gun-nut magazine are you quoting from there?

After the last shoot-em-up I was personally involved in we had a gun-nut colleague spring into action researching the various holes in our mini-bus. Later he was telling me all about it from a technical point of view. When I corrected him on a minor point of fact he was astonished to hear that I had been inside the vehicle at the time in question. I was interested to note that the human factors of this incident were of almost no interest to him. I could only wish that he had been there while it was happening, so that perhaps he could have learned something more.

Here, too, I think there is not much serious interest in what you bring up. Otherwise, why all the duff gen about ballistics as a preamble? Full marks, of course, for your show of compassion. I am sure it will mean a lot to the troops in the field and the innocent civilians, especially at this time when we celebrate the birth of Christ and the redemption of sinful humanity. As if!

BlueWolf
20th Dec 2004, 09:08
Chuks, what are you on? Duff gen? Sorry? Gun nuts? Beg pardon?

A lot of what was written in that preface is just pseudo-technical rubbish.

Says....you, I presume. Go actually check it out, dear boy. I have been there. You obviously haven't. I don't believe I mentioned ballistics. However, I do have experience with different calibres and their effects. Possibly you do not.

Your homework; go get shot by both, and report back to us with your observations on the differences thereof.

I think you will find that the AK-47 calibre is 7.62mm and not as you suggest 7.65mm.

I am trying to deal in facts here. I am sorry that you are still sore at me over my criticisms in a now long-dead thread, but I maintain that facts make for better arguments than baseless personal attacks.

one ball
20th Dec 2004, 10:35
I think you are both wrong although I believe Mr. Chuks is on the right track.

7.62mm refers to the diameter of the lands in the barrel (rifling).

The actual projectile is normally .308 in (7.82mm), although Soviet weapons commonly use a .310 in (7.87mm) bullet.

This is why there was a belief in the US that the Soviets to have an advantage in that the NATO rounds could be used in a Soviet weapon but not vice versa.

On the subject of "our own" SF troops leaving their friends to die (I take it that's what you mean?) Who told you this? If it were true then why is Combat First Aid such a high priority and basic skill in at least 1 in 3 SF troops? Not to mention the higher Medic qualifications than CFA. Sounds like BS to me.the 5.56mm (.223)...weapons were smaller, lighter, and thus more easily carried by little soldiers...and America's Asian allies What about America's Asian foes in the same war who carried the afore-mentioned AK-47 as the weapon of choice?

As a matter of interest, there is considerable thought being given (so I hear) to re-adopting the larger calibre round as the NATO standard again so all will be well in the world soon and you can rest easy Bluewolf... ;)

Now away from unpleasant gun-related topics and back to mindless stuff as the locals are getting restless.

Paterbrat
20th Dec 2004, 12:53
My impression was that Blue Wolf actualy meant that Western SF's do attend to their wounded, not the other way round.
In fact some of the enemy are self disposing, and so no wounded (on their side) to worry about in those circumstances.

chuks
20th Dec 2004, 19:24
Dear Bluewolf,

I have no recollection of some beef with you, aside from some wonky facts in this post of yours.

I never bothered to actually measure one but the AK47 is commonly said to fire 7.65 mm rounds, while the so-called NATO round is 7.62mm, also known as .308 Winchester in civilian life. (For those of us not violently minded: Although the bullets are of similar diametre the AK47 round is much shorter, so that there is not the similarity here that the numbers would suggest.)

I have not actually gone to the trouble of being shot by either a 7.62, 7.65 or even a (relatively harmless?) 5.56 mm round. If it sets your mind at rest I was very narrowly missed by some 7.65 fire and I can state that it did get my full attention at the time and for some time thereafter. If I had realised that I could score valuable points in this vain discussion then perhaps I would not have ducked quite so quickly and deeply as was the case.

The explanation given at the time I was personally involved in matters ballistic was that the high-velocity and relatively unstable 5.56 round caused much worse wounds than the 7.62 round. I never bothered to verify this fact but just took it as a given.

And, of course one could carry 400 rounds of 5.56 ammo (2 skinny bandoliers of 10 x 20-round magazines) with less effort than 80 rounds of 7.62 ammo (2 big pouches of 2 x 20-round magazines), while the 7.62 calibre M-14 was a great big old thing made of tool steel and walnut where the M-16 was all alloy and plastic weighing practically nothing by comparison. I think the numbers are something like 12 pounds versus 9, but memory fails me.

I don't quite get your point in the opening statement here, assuming that you have one, preferring to simply state that, in pure terms of fact, that the AK47 is the predominant weapon of today, so that calibre, 7.65 mm or whatever exactly it is, must be the size of that little chunk of hot metal that one needs to worry about most. Too, I don't really think one is going to be shooting through too many six-inch diametre trees in the ordinary course of things, even with a 7.62 weapon.

I feel that pseudo-technical arguments do not marry well with trying to make some moral point. In fact, get shot with a .22 in the wrong place and you are going to be having a very bad day! Ever hear about what happened to Huey Long, or James Brady?

So skip the ballistics and cut to the chase: Is shooting folks good or bad? From my point of view the answer is 'That depends'. I sure didn't appreciate being shot at, so I would put that bit of shooting down in the 'bad' column. On the other hand I could envision shooting certain categories of folks, when of course, I would want such an action on the 'good' side of the ledger. And yet I see no moral confusion in these two contradictory answers. I am probably not alone in this stance.

And you would say what? Definitely yes or definitely no? Definitely maybe, perhaps? Over to you....

TheNightOwl
20th Dec 2004, 21:26
Allan907 - Crater, '67, by any chance? Not ALL of us have forgotten!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

Boney
20th Dec 2004, 22:12
I can not comment on the technical stuff, Blue Wolf, but very good post.

There are several reasons why young people are sent to war. The first being, they are fit and strong. But I believe a more important issue is because they are young and naive, they will put blind faith in people like Bush/Rumsfield and other war pigs. They have not experienced enough in life to actually question is this legal or moral?

The poor bastards. The rest of us can just be angry but these poor buggars are expected to kill/be killed based on exaggerations, scams and just plain old bull$hit.

The current administrations behaviour over the last few years is just a disgrace and they are a blight on ALL humanity.

It is not really that sad that these criminals are in power as there have been criminals in power since time began but the real sad thing is, 51% of the population thinks these are good people. Bush has huge support among the so called "God fearing" people. How twisted and sick is that?

Not much point me going on as my views are in the minority these days but the future looks pretty scary to me.

Just answer me these questions.

1. Where are the WMD?
2. Why was the liar (Tennet) who fed Bush crap rewarded by Bush last week for his efforts? I suspect this was because at the time he told War Crim No.1 what he wanted to hear. Lets face it, he did need reasons to conduct an unprovoked attack on someone with lots of black gold that would not sell him any.
3. Lets take bets now - how long before we hear, "Iran, North Korea (not much oil here though), ... give up your weapons of mass destraction!"

Here we go again.

Expect large tax rises in coming years to pay for this outlaws colonialism.

PLovett
21st Dec 2004, 00:12
BlueWolf

Whatever the ballistics surely the point behind your post is that the decision to use military means to settle political differences should be the last decision made, not the first.:ok:

allan907
21st Dec 2004, 01:03
Night Owl Yep, 67 was a good year was it not? Mad Mitch and the Argylls giving a taste of what they had been handing out. Made for a lively couple of days. I was in Khormaksar and got a little peeved at the odd round and grenade that got over the fence! Couldn't really figure why we were so keen to hang on to that God forsaken piece of dirt though!

TheNightOwl
21st Dec 2004, 02:12
For my money, Allan, we should have chucked a bucket of sunshine at the place and turned it all into green glass! A most miserable, benighted sh1t-hole of a place, never will it change for the better!
I came up from Nairobi to Khormaksar on "Service business", and was caught up in the unpleasantness, couldn't get out of the bloody place fast enough, once outbound traffic got going again. I have a recollection that the Durham Light Infantry were there as well as the "Agile and Suffering Highlanders, were they not?

Nairobi never looked better, from short finals!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

boofhead
1st Jan 2005, 18:36
If you haven't lived in the US you won't appreciate how hard it is to get medical coverage, and how expensive. If you are not covered it can cost twice as much to get to see a doctor, and that is just the starting price. I read about a guy who was self-employed and one of his kids, due to a pre-exisiting condition, was denied coverage. The kid needed an operation (not related to his "condition") and was in the hospital for 4 days. The bill was $160,000 and he could not pay. He got a lawyer and negotiated a reduction to $40,000, and even then had to sell his business and declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile the hospital admitted that if he had had insurance they would have only chaged the insurance company $15,000 for the same procedure.

Now consider the fate of the soldiers from Iraq, many of whom suffer from the most terrible wounds, not properly covered in this post. The particular type of "warfare" exposes the soldiers there to shrapnel wounds from bombings and mines more than traditional soldier against soldier fighting does, so there are more seriously wounded casualties than normal. And I mean serious, blindings and loss of limbs only being part of it. Young men with all limbs blown off for example.

When they get back to the US, they spend some time in the veteran's hospital being stabilised, then they are sent off to relatives, often for the rest of their lives, with a small pension. It is tough for many to get back into the veterans' hospitals, which are not geared for long-term care (and have to serve the Washington politicians anyway). Many of them (thousands and counting) are left to their own devices, which means in practical terms, no help at all. No jobs (if in the guards they lost their original job long ago), no money (soldiers in the US are paid very little, many families having to rely on food stamps to feed their kids), only a small payment of compensation from their government, no health insurance (and see above what it costs to see a doctor if you have no insurance. I paid $128 to the local clinic last month for my daughter, who needed a checkup, no illness involved but checkups are not covered. No Xrays or blood tests, just five minutes with a doctor. Actually it might have been worse, many clinics in the US make do with a NP instead of a doctor) and no hope.

Reports are coming in (not in the main-stream press of course) of a real societal problem with these guys who are being abandoned by their government and for their families who have to give up so much to care for them. Those of you who live in Europe or Aus have no idea how bad it is for those people in the US who are not rich (even those who have health insurance provided through their place of work are losing that coverage at a rapid rate, and retirees are often cut off when their company goes into Chapter 11 bankruptcy). It is more than a shame the way they are being treated, it is criminal.

Of course there are some who have had their limbs blown off or are paraplegics and want to go back!

Farrell
1st Jan 2005, 20:03
5 years French Foreign Legion - have to agree with BlueWolf on the tech specs.

Grandpa
1st Jan 2005, 20:10
............"America criticising" which could lead this thread to be closed?

I understand Boofhead you are telling the facts about wounded veterans situation, and that it's your compassion only which leads you to inform us, so that nobody can say: "I didn't know!"

But you can imagine the profit Anti-American groups could make with this kind of information, making people believe that young soldiers are only lemons to squeeze and drop when the military industry lobbies in Washington doesn't need them anymore.

Their rant could undermine this war support in US citizen's opinion which allready lowered to less than 50%.

In other terms, as could have said Pt.G.W.Bush :"Are you with us or against us?"

BlueWolf
1st Jan 2005, 20:39
Priceless, Grandpa.

Please do us all a favour and sod off and start your own website, where you can badmouth America to your heart's content.

Be sure to post everything there in German, since that's what you'd be speaking were it not for the Yanks.

Do have a happy and prosperous year.

3 slips and a gully
1st Jan 2005, 21:13
Good point and quite accurate. But if you cast your mind further back (to around the time Ol' Jimmy Cook was discovering the beauty and wonders of Australia and New Zealand), If it wasn't for the French (apparently 3 or 4 Frogs for every American against the British), the American colonists may not have won Yorktown in 1781 (the battle that ended the war) and whilst I doubt that America would still be a British Colony (part of Canada?), a defeat for Washington may have quelled his political and military career.
As a result of the victory of the Continental forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in the West Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army. On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue. We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops, by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken.

So maybe the American assistance in WW2 could be perceived as "returning a favour" between old friends?

quoted from... French Contribution to American war of Independance (http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html)

BlueWolf
1st Jan 2005, 22:09
Good quote, 3 slips, and very thought-provoking. The Americans and the French go way back, France has the honour of being the United States' first ally, they gave America the Statue of Liberty, and so on.

So it puzzles me a little as to why there should be such animosity expressed against the US by one claiming to represent France.

I have my suspicions however that the contributor from France has perhaps not always lived there, and may have another adgenda altogether.

Either way, many of his (or her?) contributions appear to follow a pattern, one clear aspect of which is the attempted hijacking of many threads for the purposes of having a crack at Uncle Sam. Personally I find it quite tedious.

Thanks for the link.:ok:

3 slips and a gully
1st Jan 2005, 22:22
No wucking furries me antipodean mate. Have a Steiny for me :ok:

(Sth Zulland huh? Crusader or Highlander country/supporter?)

BlueWolf
1st Jan 2005, 23:43
Highlanders mate, still got both eyes;)

...and it's Speights in these here parts. Cheers!
:ok:

Grandpa
2nd Jan 2005, 09:07
.............are you retreating in order?

Seems you admit US would still be an English speaking territory, had it not been with our Lafayette, Rochambeau and their troops, not to speak about this Froggy Admiral who managed to defeat HM's navy (was it a defeat or a retreat ?).

Now that you have diverted this thread to a full investigation about Grandpa's origin, may I suggest you create a special thread about my humble person, so that people like you could exchange interesting posts regarding Grandpa's colour, nose, hair.....and let the grownup talk alone?

Besides, have you seen "Johnny got his gun" or "Un long Dimanche de Fiançailles"?

If the answer is "No!", then you may come back after you watch this two films to the end.

Prepare a handkerchief, in case compassion for young wounded soldiers reaches your heart.....................

one ball
2nd Jan 2005, 09:10
And it was the only time the frogs ever got to (help) win a war. Except for the French Revolution but that was against other French. "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s" and he went onto greater fame in later years as the inventor of "paper/scissors/rock".

One glaring historical inaccuracy which casts doubt on the validity of that entire version of events:
France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money... They never loaned the Americans anything. They lent it. Obviously written by a language-ruining, war-mongering, culture-trashing, fast-food exporting, Hollywood-movie-believing, Frog-upsetting, oil-addict Yank.

BlueWolf
2nd Jan 2005, 10:23
Not really interested, Gramps. Thanks all the same. The one thing I can tell you for certain is that carrying hate and bitterness about with you will give you a stomach ulcer long before it changes America one iota, no matter what you put up on any website.

If you need help with therapy or counselling, PM me. Genuine offer. It's part of what I do.

Namaste.

tony draper
2nd Jan 2005, 13:10
We limeys do not bare a grudge, after all we loaned Tommy Jefferson the money to buy Louisianna off the French a few years later, otherwise the cousins might well all be speaking French now, it just don't bare thinking about do it?.

:E

Josh10524
2nd Jan 2005, 17:51
Although the technical side of the argument is not of importance, the enthusiastically ignorant discussion of ballistics in the original post makes it difficult to take the rest of it seriously. Just so it is understood, there are two kinds of 7.62 rounds. 7.62x39 is the round used in the AK-47 series. although it is wider, it is comparable to the 5.56 m16 round in performance. 7.62x51 is a much more powerful round that is not commonly used in Iraq, although some insurgents have been seen with FAL's and some American sniper and designated marksmen teams use M21 rifles. Both use the 7.62x51 variety. Regardless of this, however, it is stupid to try to analyze the rounds. All hurt if they hit you, I assure you, and all have the potential to kill you with no trouble. Comparisons to the past are even stupider. In World War II both sides used rounds more powerful than even 7.62x51. In Vietnam, the early M16 ammo had a tendency to tumble on impact, which often removed limbs. I'm not going to comment on the political side of things as it's been beaten to death and nobody's complaining on the internet will change anything.

Grandpa
2nd Jan 2005, 20:02
Funny expression for an old lad who never killed anybody, never bombed villagers, never tortured, never raped, never looted, never burnt children, never took part in attacks against foreign country or occupation.................

If you are still in control of your vision BlueWolf, you should turn to the right direction!