Page 2 of 4
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:17 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
RF:
The President is Commander-in chief and the President is put in the White House by the American people, or at least by those Americans who turn out to vote.
And it isn't as if they've had a lack of choice. They could have elected Barry Goldwater in 1964, or even in 1968 they could have presented the World with President George C. Wallace and Vice-President Curtis LeMay to sort out matters in Vietnam - on the other hand they could, and mercifully didn't, elect George McGovern.....
I largely agree with Karl, it is a matter of atitude and political will, it is as we have previously observed, a matter of seeking absolute victory in the way FDR saw it when his country was attacked. Even Lindburgh was able to see that.
Sadly true. I´m certain the US lost the track for a military victory after WWII, that´s why I don´t believe they (and with them all the civilized Western World) would win in Iraq, why Iran would finnaly get their nuclear weapons and why China is going to defeat them when the fighting for Taiwan and the Spratley Islands breaks.
Without leaders as FDR (or his uncle Teddy), or Winston Churchill the West will decay as Gondor in J.R.R. Tolkien "The Lord of Rings". Thinking about it I´ll send a copy of the book to Bush, maybe he could read it after losing all the East to the hands of fanatic camel drivers or chinese commies.
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:28 pm
by ontheslipway
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:08 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Foeth:
You´re kidding me, lad! You fix it with photoshop... Sauron is more inteligent than that orc!
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:43 pm
by RF
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Sadly true. I´m certain the US lost the track for a military victory after WWII, that´s why I don´t believe they (and with them all the civilized Western World) would win in Iraq, why Iran would finnaly get their nuclear weapons and why China is going to defeat them when the fighting for Taiwan and the Spratley Islands breaks.
Without leaders as FDR (or his uncle Teddy), or Winston Churchill the West will decay as Gondor in J.R.R. Tolkien "The Lord of Rings". Thinking about it I´ll send a copy of the book to Bush, maybe he could read it after losing all the East to the hands of fanatic camel drivers or chinese commies.
You're probably too late with Bush/Cheney, they have only 27 months left. Send it to the next president, I wonder who that might be. Condoleeza Rice seems the best choice. What do you think, Karl?
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:56 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Krusty the clown is a good choice. Because if someone elects Hillary Clinton I bet Krusty could do better.
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:27 pm
by ostriker
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Krusty the clown is a good choice. Because if someone elects Hillary Clinton I bet Krusty could do better.
Im fan of the Krusty the clown
This hoax is a "peanut" in comparison with this web site:
http://www.fuckfrance.com/
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:28 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Krusty is cool but I prefer Mr. Burns. The Simpson are the best radiological potrait of contemporary civilization.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:18 pm
by RF
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Krusty the clown is a good choice. Because if someone elects Hillary Clinton I bet Krusty could do better. :whistle:
Will Krusty be seeking the Republican nomination for 2008?
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:18 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
RF:
Will Krusty be seeking the Republican nomination for 2008?
No, for the Republicans is Mr. Burns. Krusty will run, and win, for the Democratic Party as Carter and Clinton did.
Re: French military victories?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:33 pm
by RF
Unfortunately Krusty ain't running.....
Re: French military victories?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:46 pm
by Karl Heidenreich
Unfortunately Krusty ain't running.....
Agreed!
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:36 am
by RF
marcelo_malara wrote:I must admit that Napoleon was the greatest military leader of the modern times. His conquests ranged from Egypt to Spain and even Moskow!!! Eventually all the major European powers had to join forces to win.
Yes but that was after the defeat in Russia, where 90% of the Grande Armee was lost, a disaster on a proportionate scale bigger than that of the Wehrmacht in 1941 which at least managed to hold its positions, whereas the French didn't.
Waterloo was essentially a defeat by the British on their own. Blucher and the Prussians turned up in the endgame.
And of course we must not forget Trafalgar. And as you mention Egypt Marcelo, the Battle of the Nile....
Re: French military victories?
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:42 am
by RF
Would I be right in thinking that the last French military victory (apart from their part in the Suez operation in 1956 which turned out to be a political failure due to US interference) was actually in June 1940, in the fourteen day war against the Italians in the Alps, where they repulsed the Italian ''invasion'' and then surrendered because they had already capitulated to the Germans?
Re: French military victories?
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:26 pm
by lwd
It depends a lot on how you define a miliary victory. For instance just recently they've freed a couple of ships captured by pirates. I think they've had a couple of pretty successful outcomes in Africa recently as well.
Re: French military victories?
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:20 pm
by RF
Free French forces did of course have a number of victories in North Africa in WW2 without involvement from the British or Americans, most notably in Chad. Not sure whether that would count.
