Amazing similarities.

[techs]

From the book, Senseless Secrets, by Lt. Col.(ret) Michael Lee Lanning. Written in 1996. Word for word from the book:

“At the end of WW1 there were two concerns over Russia. One was that there were tons of military supplies that had been sent by the Allies to Russia that were sitting on the docks at Vladivostok. The fear was the Russians would sell them to the Germans. The second was that in Archangel thousands of Czechs who were Russian prisoners wanted to return home and form their own country.”

“Against the advice of his Cabinet, President Wilson, on the basis of information supplied by the British, made the decision to send American troops to assist the British and French in Siberia and Northern Russia.

“On site intelligence by the American forces in Siberia and Northern Russia would not be sufficient to assist commanders to accomplish their mission.”

“During more than eighteen months of operations, the Americans in Siberia and Northern Russia fought Russian factions, bitter cold, and unmitigated confusion in a futile attempt to offer some stability to the post-revolutionary country.”

“…U.S. accomplishments totaled zero with the exception of leaving the Bolsheviks with a long term dislike for the interfering Americans.”

“ An after action report written by the American Expeditionary Force staff noted: “The entire affair was manifestly conceived in an atmosphere of inaccurate intelligence information”

[Ya_know]

Similar to what? The Russians in Afghanistan?

[Wayward Clam]

Similar to your post, Ya_Know. It lacks intelligence, accomplishes nothing, and leaves everybody with a lingering dislike for you. :D :p :flame:

(Oh, go ahead and freak out about this. You know you want to! :D )

[Ya_know]

Similar to your post, Ya_Know.

Actually, I was serious. Russia lost their a$$es in Afghanistan, every victory was countered with several defeats. What *WE* did in both Afghanistan and Iraq, was state of the art war fighting. Sure, intelligence wasn't 100%, but it never is. Even with the difficulties, we still went in and kicked @$$...not to toot our own horn...

Show me another circumstance where victory was so decisive…

[techs]

Similar to your post, Ya_Know. It lacks intelligence, accomplishes nothing, and leaves everybody with a lingering dislike for you. :D :p :flame:

(Oh, go ahead and freak out about this. You know you want to! :D )

You really think that this post accomplishes nothing?
I subscribe to the notion "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

[Wayward Clam]

Actually, I was serious. Russia lost their a$$es in Afghanistan, every victory was countered with several defeats. What *WE* did in both Afghanistan and Iraq, was state of the art war fighting. Sure, intelligence wasn't 100%, but it never is. Even with the difficulties, we still went in and kicked @$$...not to toot our own horn...

Show me another circumstance where victory was so decisive…

Hmmm... the white man conquering North America comes to mind... :D

[Ya_know]

Hmmm... the white man conquering North America comes to mind... :D

Still not nearly that decisive, there were scores of years, even as many as 100 before the west was won, and I am sure 10’s of thousands, even 100’s of thousands lost their lives over the time…and that was on our home front…Iraq was a foreign land that we engaged. We shut down Iraq and entered Baghdad in something like...what was it, 30 days? Anybody remember the exact duration?

[Wayward Clam]

Okay, some random similarities off the top of my head:

- Countries more culturally "advanced" invading soveriegn nations and imposing new forms of government on them that are foreign to their culture
- These countries had immensely superior technology and military power
- Some people rationalizing the invasion as bringing a new level of civility to the native people
- IMMENSE economic and military potential of the conquered land being the real reason for the invasion
- Casualty ratio for the "liberated" people atrociously high compared to those of the "liberators"

The biggest REAL differences I can see are as follows:

- Scale
- The nations that conquered North America were NOT opposed by the vast majority of their own populations and the vast majority of the international community. (They were opposing each OTHER, but that's because each of them wanted all the resources for themselves.)

[Camaro80z]

Okay, some random similarities off the top of my head:

- Countries more culturally "advanced" invading soveriegn nations and imposing new forms of government on them that are foreign to their culture
- These countries had immensely superior technology and military power
- Some people rationalizing the invasion as bringing a new level of civility to the native people
- IMMENSE economic and military potential of the conquered land being the real reason for the invasion
- Casualty ratio for the "liberated" people atrociously high compared to those of the "liberators"

The biggest REAL differences I can see are as follows:

- Scale
- The nations that conquered North America were NOT opposed by the vast majority of their own populations and the vast majority of the international community. (They were opposing each OTHER, but that's because each of them wanted all the resources for themselves.)


I will have to disagree with your thought that the VAST majority of people were against the war. While many are using a flip on it now, I remember a strong backing when this first started. The people I know were atleast 20 for every one against, but i guess I must have been in a pocket of the VAST minority.

[techs]

As I recall we defeated the Indians by basically killing so many of them they could not field an effective force. It might not be unfair to call it "Genocide". So I would really like to think we are above Iraqi genocide.

[Ya_know]

The biggest REAL differences I can see are as follows:

- Scale
- The nations that conquered North America were NOT opposed by the vast majority of their own populations and the vast majority of the international community. (They were opposing each OTHER, but that's because each of them wanted all the resources for themselves.)

Your other points are a farce, I will not waste my time. But this, I must counter...

There is no vast majority that opposes the war. Take a poll at any time during this campaign, from beginning to end, there has always been a majority of support. Even now, with all of the liberal election time propaganda trying to "protest" the war, and our occupying presence, we still maintain a popular vote of support of the war. Grant it, there is a very high percentage that are against it, I will grant you that, but there is no Majority...even throughout the world.

[Ya_know]

As I recall we defeated the Indians by basically killing so many of them they could not field an effective force. It might not be unfair to call it "Genocide". So I would really like to think we are above Iraqi genocide.

See Clam, in an effort to "rattle my cage" you've effectively undermined your core agenda. Even your own camp is refuting your statement...thank you very much for your time, see you next month when you decide to drop back in. :wave: It was fun while it lasted... :p

[techs]

Your other points are a farce, I will not waste my time. But this, I must counter...

There is no vast majority that opposes the war. Take a poll at any time during this campaign, from beginning to end, there has always been a majority of support. Even now, with all of the liberal election time propaganda trying to "protest" the war, and our occupying presence, we still maintain a popular vote of support of the war. Grant it, there is a very high percentage that are against it, I will grant you that, but there is no Majority...even throughout the world.

Wrong. Last time I looked (and its been awhile) only about 40 percent still supported our going in to Iraq.
And if you really believe a majority of the worlds citizens are not against the war there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

[Wayward Clam]

Your other points are a farce, I will not waste my time. But this, I must counter...

There is no vast majority that opposes the war. Take a poll at any time during this campaign, from beginning to end, there has always been a majority of support. Even now, with all of the liberal election time propaganda trying to "protest" the war, and our occupying presence, we still maintain a popular vote of support of the war. Grant it, there is a very high percentage that are against it, I will grant you that, but there is no Majority...even throughout the world.

I'm sorry, Ya_Know, but you wouldn't let ME get away with just saying "you're wrong" without substantiating why, and expecting people to believe me. Why are you resorting to such weak debating tactics? Could it be that you CAN'T defend your position, and that's why you aren't?

In terms of my assertions, I will concede one and only one point:

There was a significant part of the US population that supported the war (and some of them still are). Part of this was the WMD issue that you so wonderfully flipflopped on in our other post.

However...

The vast majority of countries in the world were against you. Coalition numbers were 50 countries... the number of countries in the world is 192. Seems like a pretty clear majority to me. (These numbers are from Google).

In terms of populations, it is also clear that the support for the war was largely only there in terms of the US people. The numbers for population in Britain, and the other "large" coalition allies, were and are much against the war.

Also, in terms of WORLD population, the most populous countries were AGAINST the war. China and Russia alone are pretty huge in people, don't you think?

[Wayward Clam]

See Clam, in an effort to "rattle my cage" you've effectively undermined your core agenda. Even your own camp is refuting your statement...thank you very much for your time, see you next month when you decide to drop back in. :wave: It was fun while it lasted... :p

On the contrary, Ya_Know, he is SUPPORTING my point above about how the casualties to the "civilized" nations were incredibly high compared to the casualties of the liberators...

And... am I mistaken or are you criticizing me for having more of a life than you? :D :D :D

[Ya_know]

The vast majority of countries in the world were against you. Coalition numbers were 50 countries... the number of countries in the world is 192. Seems like a pretty clear majority to me. (These numbers are from Google).

In terms of populations, it is also clear that the support for the war was largely only there in terms of the US people. The numbers for population in Britain, and the other "large" coalition allies, were and are much against the war.

Also, in terms of WORLD population, the most populous countries were AGAINST the war. China and Russia alone are pretty huge in people, don't you think?

So that's your proof? Come on man, you're as hollow if not more so than my last post (I love a good paradox). Fact is, 50 countries had armies that they could send in support of this venture, the others may not have supported the war with troops, but their absence doesn't automatically imply they were against our policy at all, in fact it doesn’t imply anything at all...so do better next time if you have a fact to add.

The Russian President has been in support of Bush for some time now, and their original policy against the war in Iraq doesn't depict the populations vote any more than our going to war depicts our populations vote. So again your facts base is whack. At least when I came in here with conjecture and speculation, I didn't try to back any of it up with hollow research.

Go back to watching your robot wars... ;)

[TripleRLtd]

See Clam, in an effort to "rattle my cage" you've effectively undermined your core agenda. Even your own camp is refuting your statement...thank you very much for your time, see you next month when you decide to drop back in. :wave: It was fun while it lasted... :pYeah, what's up with that? Hey Clam, is it us: WD you miss so much, or just teh Ya_k?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/eek3.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ya_know]

Yeah, what's up with that? Hey Clam, is it us: WD you miss so much, or just teh Ya_k?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/eek3.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Or maybe it's just that when he's in here with us it's only because his gay clam forums are down (not “going down”, but unavailable, I must choose my words wisely)...so he has to "slum" with us until things get back to sliming in his neck of the woods... :eek2:

[Wayward Clam]

So that's your proof? Come on man, you're as hollow if not more so than my last post (I love a good paradox). Fact is, 50 countries had armies that they could send in support of this venture, the others may not have supported the war with troops, but their absence doesn't automatically imply they were against our policy at all, in fact it doesn’t imply anything at all...so do better next time if you have a fact to add.

The Russian President has been in support of Bush for some time now, and their original policy against the war in Iraq doesn't depict the populations vote any more than our going to war depicts our populations vote. So again your facts base is whack. At least when I came in here with conjecture and speculation, I didn't try to back any of it up with hollow research.

Go back to watching your robot wars... ;)

Ok this post makes no sense whatsoever.

You say that the fact that the countries that didn't join you doesn't necessarily mean they were against you. I remember a LOT of political rhetoric from Dubya and Co. saying quite specifically, either you're with us or against us.

You say that the fact that a country went to war doesn't reflect its population's vote. You are SUPPORTING my point when you say that!

You say that you came here with conjecture and speculation and didn't bother trying to back it up with research. Are you actually trying to convince people you are right? Or are you secretly a democratic provocateur?


Yeah, what's up with that? Hey Clam, is it us: WD you miss so much, or just teh Ya_k?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/eek3.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The facts of the matters are this: number one, I have a life. Number two, while Windrivers is cool in many ways, it's definitely NOT the most interesting place on the internet. And Ya_K doesn't bother me as much as he used to... I have gotten over my "techs-itis". :D


Or maybe it's just that when he's in here with us it's only because his gay clam forums are down (not “going down”, but unavailable, I must choose my words wisely)...so he has to "slum" with us until things get back to sliming in his neck of the woods... :eek2:

I just adore how this comes from the guy who thinks that his opponents are trying to conduct a smear campaign... :D :D :D

[techs]

Play nice Ya_Know. Every single poll except possibly from Britain has shown not just a majority against the war but a large majority.
Ya_Really don't think our war in Iraq is supported by a majority of the worlds citizens, now do you?

[Ya_know]

The facts of the matters are this: number one, I have a life. Number two, while Windrivers is cool in many ways, it's definitely NOT the most interesting place on the internet. And Ya_K doesn't bother me as much as he used to... I have gotten over my "techs-itis". :D

D

I'm reporting you to NooNoo. How dare you come in here then profess you have a life!?! One negates the other...

(Face it..I am so much more brilliant than you are…)

[Ya_know]

Play nice Ya_Know. Every single poll except possibly from Britain has shown not just a majority against the war but a large majority.
Ya_Really don't think our war in Iraq is supported by a majority of the worlds citizens, now do you?

Those taking the polls were probably ill-informed by sh!theads like Moore bilging their bile all over the world that America didn’t support it’s own war, or it’s own president.

Not to mention, what polls, and who actually administered them…what are their accuracy? Crap, it’s all crap.

I am basing this on fact that the world wants us as the global police force, it’s the way it has been for too many years. And the world at large is against tyranny. Do they support the war with Iraq? Well not directly, but in their hearts they support our cause 100%…well except for the other evil dictators of the world…Do you see my points?

Even you all here against me right now, support the need to get rid of Saddam 100%, but because it was Bush at the helm, you’ve hidden behind these farces, and fake ideas.

[Wayward Clam]

I am basing this on fact that the world wants us as the global police force, it’s the way it has been for too many years.

And what are you basing this "fact" on?

Did you ASK the world if they wanted you as coppers? :D

[techs]

Those taking the polls were probably ill-informed by sh!theads like Moore bilging their bile all over the world that America didn’t support it’s own war, or it’s own president.

Not to mention, what polls, and who actually administered them…what are their accuracy? Crap, it’s all crap.

I am basing this on fact that the world wants us as the global police force, it’s the way it has been for too many years. And the world at large is against tyranny. Do they support the war with Iraq? Well not directly, but in their hearts they support our cause 100%…well except for the other evil dictators of the world…Do you see my points?

Even you all here against me right now, support the need to get rid of Saddam 100%, but because it was Bush at the helm, you’ve hidden behind these farces, and fake ideas.

You are totally wrong in thinking that the worlds citizens secretly wanted us to invade Iraq.
As to "Even you all here against me right now, support the need to get rid of Saddam 100%, but because it was Bush at the helm, you’ve hidden behind these farces, and fake ideas"
I agree somewhat. Speaking for myself it is good Saddam is gone (for the Iraqis and the world). I think it could have been done in a similiar manner to what we did in Afghanistan. The Kurds were already beyond his control and we could have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam. But the way it was done was just about the worst way possible. And since Bush was in charge of that he has to take the blame.
btw I would also be happy if the N. Korean wacko were gone. Plus the mad mullahs of Iran.

I sort of see a "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall" idea coming from you.

[Ya_know]

As to "Even you all here against me right now, support the need to get rid of Saddam 100%, but because it was Bush at the helm, you’ve hidden behind these farces, and fake ideas"
I agree somewhat. ...

I sort of see a "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall" idea coming from you.

That was all you had to say...I rest my case. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/thanks.gif

[Wayward Clam]

I'm willing to concede that Saddam had to go.

BUT, what about China, Korea, most of Africa, many other 3rd world countries and banana republics?

When are they going to be liberated?

Answer: Never.

No Saudis or oil involved.

[TripleRLtd]

I'm willing to concede that Saddam had to go.

BUT, what about China, Korea, most of Africa, many other 3rd world countries and banana republics?

When are they going to be liberated?

Answer: Never.

No Saudis or oil involved. The real reason:
They are not at war with us!!! If they were, the story would be different.

[techs]

That was all you had to say...I rest my case. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/thanks.gif

That should go in the Misquotes thread. Please fix.

EDIT- Thanks.

[Wayward Clam]

The real reason:
They are not at war with us!!! If they were, the story would be different.

Saddam was never at war with the States, except as the US started it.

Admitted: he hates the US. I am quite certain he would obliterate the US if he had the capability. But so would a lot of other places, and a lot of them have a lot MORE capability than he ever had!

If you are referring to Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks, then I will ALSO admit that Saddam has ties to terrorism and would and probably has encouraged and supported terrorist attacks against the US. But AGAIN, there are a lot of other countries that are just as bad or worse than Iraq ever was.

AGAIN, tis true, Saddam had to go for all these reasons. But OTHER people need to go MORE!

Come on, Bush. In the words of Bill Goldberg... WHOSE NEXT?

[Jediab]

Please someone name me a country anywhere in the world that has the balls to formally declare war on the United States?

Iraq would never, ever have formally declared war. So they did minor things in the background. "Unofficial" sort of speak.

[gazzak]

Please someone name me a country anywhere in the world that has the balls to formally declare war on the United States?

British nuke subs are on your coastline now. Please remove all McDonalds from our Kingdom or face the consequences :redeyes:

[Wayward Clam]

British nuke subs are on your coastline now. Please remove all McDonalds from our Kingdom or face the consequences :redeyes:

Or what? You'll destroy every dentist's office in the continental USA? :flame:

[techs]

hehe