World-wide Vote for the next US President? [Archive]

jazbug5

9th September 2004, 14:32

Just recieved this in an email and couldn't resist posting it here...

THE LIE CLOCK**
*
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked,*"What are all those clocks?"*

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a*Lie Clock.*Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."*

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's.*The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie." Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved*twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."*

"Where's Bush's clock?" asked the man.*

"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

jrandom

9th September 2004, 14:59

Merkins electing an intelligent president?

:killingme

Anyway, what would we do without someone to generate quotes like the recent one about gynaecologists "practicing their love"?

:buggerd:

BurnCycle

10th September 2004, 06:57

Living in the states and experience this first hand is overwhelming. It’s not the better man gets voted in, it’s the one with the most money that was able to dig up the most skeletons on the competition and make them stick.

The two party thing is also a joke. Die hard Republicans and Democrats are so closed minded it’s a wonder bi-partisan is anything but a dream. There is the Independent party, one day it would be nice to see some of this party have some power/money/honesty and not anything that exposure would ruin. I swear more money is spent running smear campaigns during election time than highlighting accomplishment and what it means to the American people.

I have been living in the US for ~25 years as a NZ citizen which means I can’t vote… Something I wish I could do.

moko

10th September 2004, 18:27

Maybe a bit off-topic but I`ve just read a book called Rogue State by William Blum.A good read for anyone under any illussions that America is the land of the free or supporter of anything like democracy or freedom of speech anywhere in the world.I`ve read all the Michael Moore type books but this on still had me frigging angry at what was told.Apparently America is virtually blackmailing Vietnam into repaying debts owed by South Vietnam before the war,if they dont the U.S. will block all aid e.t.c. from the World Bank,IMF e.t.c.Meanwhile guess how much they`ve paid in compensation for destroying that country,yep,nothing.
I`d have a lot more respect for Kerry if he`d stop trying to paper over his anti-war activities in the past,says it all about the U.S. that telling people what really went on in Vietnam is seen as little less than treason,no-one`s saying what he said was wrong,they just seem to think he was wrong to say it.
Not only did Bush`s reaction when he was told about 9/11 say a lot but so did the t.v. footage that for spome reason you never see these days of a couple of hours later,bloke was shitting himself,seems a lot braver sending other people off to fight his spiteful family fueds for him.Blair`s worse,he dosnt even have the excuse of being slightly retarded.

badlieutenant

10th September 2004, 18:57

I oftern wonder if the whole "america, greatest power on earth" thing is really not so. More and more america faces oppisition from other governments and continues to do whatever, the UN is a failed pawn for the U.S and as such barely has any power. If I was going to make a guess at who would be the greatest powers in the next 100 years it wouldnt be america. My money is on china and/or india. Resourses are going to get more and more scarce, both these countries have material resourses but probably more importantly thier wealth in sheer manpower is massive.
On a side note I think aussie is gona get screwed with its relationship with america. Didnt they hope to get a free trade agreement from america after vietnam??? now thier looking at random attacks from xtremist cells from within thier nearest neighbours. And a limited free trade agreement. Isnt that a oxymoron??
And wasnt william wallace (braveheart) a terrorist ?
After watching beslan last week Im so glad I havnt got any kids. What kind of world are we gona leave them.??

SPman

10th September 2004, 19:12

.... If I was going to make a guess at who would be the greatest powers in the next 100 years it wouldnt be america. My money is on china and/or india. Resourses are going to get more and more scarce, both these countries have material resourses but probably more importantly thier wealth in sheer manpower is massive. ...
O My guess is China will be the next superpower. And watch the world run for cover when they walk into Taiwan in the next 10 years!

In my opinion neither are worthy of the job. I am!

Oh.......

:o

Skyryder

10th September 2004, 21:18

I watched last night's television documentary on the events of 9/11. There were many striking images, but for me the most unforgettable was not the plane hitting the building, or the air force pilot choked with emotion at the thought of shooting down innocent civilians, but the look on Bush's face as he stood at the front of that classroom and tried to come to terms with what he had just been told. In the circumstances some indecisiveness might have been expected, but his blank incomprehension and utter bewilderment spoke volumes.

Did not see the doc. but there are some stunning scenes in Mike Moore's Farenheit 9/11 that deals with this very thing when GB was at the school. Bush just looks bewildered. Moore makes him look a bit of a fool. It is interesting that when GB was first informed of this he said something to the effect "what sort of 'folks' (the trrorists) do this? The key word was folks and in American meaning folks have a warm fuzzy conotation like the folks next door. This clip was not in Moores doc and I have never seen it repeated on TV again. Guess the spin doctors have seen that it has been cut up.

Skyryder

Ghost Lemur

10th September 2004, 21:37

SP - We don't have to worry when that time comes. The NZ Government has NEVER recognized Taiwan. Screw having a free trade agreement with the US, costs more than it's worth.

A free trade deal with China on the other hand is well worth all effort.

Add to this having close ties with India and the Middle East and NZ is well placed on the world stage to avoid any US/Aus fallout.

Not a huge fan of Politics, I am thankful (irrespective of other policy, etc) that we had a leader who was willing to not bend to the US/Aus pressure. I have a feeling any of the last 5 national leaders would have just been another Blair/Howard and had their noses stuck up Bush's fanny.

MikeL

10th September 2004, 21:45

It is interesting that when GB was first informed of this he said something to the effect "what sort of 'folks' (the trrorists) do this? The key word was folks and in American meaning folks have a warm fuzzy conotation like the folks next door. This clip was not in Moores doc and I have never seen it repeated on TV again. Guess the spin doctors have seen that it has been cut up.

Skyryder

It was included in the BBC doco (the first time I had seen it since the original broadcast). It must have been an embarrassment to Bush's supporters, because it clearly indicates that the man is a total f*ckwit.

pete376403

11th September 2004, 00:19

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html is a very interesting page about Bushes actions (or lack of them) on 9/11

And this is what he said about the"folks"

Today we've had a national tragedy. _Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have spoken to the Vice President, to the Governor of New York, to the Director of the FBI, and have ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families, and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.

El Dopa

11th September 2004, 13:43

My guess is China will be the next superpower. And watch the world run for cover when they walk into Taiwan in the next 10 years!

Most of the smart economists seem to be putting money on China and India as the emerging economic superpowers. Well educated middle-upper classes, cheap labour etc etc.

BTW, NZ might not recognise Taiwan as a country, but there are certainly a good few reciprocal 'recognition' agreements in place with Taiwan to get round that particular roadblock.

magnum

11th September 2004, 15:55

vote kermit the frog for press at least he only has one hand up his poohole. :eek:

Lou Girardin

13th September 2004, 20:39

Coldkiwi

14th September 2004, 18:04

I don't understand the obsession with militarism that holds Amerika today. For a 'peace loving' nation they put a lot of store by what military service a President to be has done/not done.
And it's not as if they're particularly good at war either.
They came in late against an exhausted foe in WW1. Late again against an enemy preoccupied on a different front (Germany) and a materially inferior foe (Japan) in WW2
Were fought to a stalemate in Korea. Kicked out of Vietnam. Successfully invaded Grenada and Panama. (Whoop de do) and now they are being hammered in Iraq.
It's time they tried peaceful diplomacy, but they need to find diplomats first.
Then, to the amazement of all, they don't understand why they're so loathed.

yes, they were 'late' into ww1 and ww2 (possibly the last time the US didn't actually start the fight) but the Poms and the Frenchies weren't exactly covering themselves in glory before the US showed up eh?

I agree some more diplomacy these days would serve them better than any multi billion dollar defence budget increase. Perhaps they should have two elections: One for the local president who runs internal affairs etc and one who runs foreign policy. That way, at least you'd have guys that knew the rest of the world existed dealing with other countries (and not offending everybody by getting the leader and the country's name wrong)

Coldkiwi

14th September 2004, 18:29

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html is a very interesting page about Bushes actions (or lack of them) on 9/11

oh my god.

I've just spent the last 20 minutes reading that page. John Kerry should just forget his campaign and post a link to that website.

Surely George Bush has got to be the thickest leader America has had in the 20th Century?

Hitcher

15th September 2004, 10:14

Surely George Bush has got to be the thickest leader America has had in the 20th Century?
In the 21st maybe... What about Gerald Ford? How quickly they forget...

riffer

15th September 2004, 10:23

In the 21st maybe... What about Gerald Ford? How quickly they forget...
Oooh, I wonder if Kerry will bring in a "pardon the last president" law if he gets in to office?

jrandom

15th September 2004, 10:28

the Poms and the Frenchies weren't exactly covering themselves in glory before the US showed up eh?

After reading Churchill's history of WW2, I can safely comment that the Brits did rather well, actually, after they finally realised that throwing away all their guns wasn't going to have enough influence on tree-hugging German sensibilities to stop them from swallowing Europe.

In fact, it would probably be fair to say that the Poms *did* cover themselves in glory before the US showed up.

I don't see any bad reflections on Britain from that period, apart from the aforesaid tendency to pacifism in the face of imminent danger during the 1930s.

Madmax

15th September 2004, 11:21

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 12:57

In the 21st maybe... What about Gerald Ford? How quickly they forget...

I knew someone would say something...I did think about that but he's the only US president of the 21st century eh. (or maybe clinton was there at the millenium? I can't recall... anyway... saying he's stupider than Clinton doesn't really put the guy into perspective).

Gerald Ford? Now what did he get up to? More photo-ops while his country was being attacked?

riffer

15th September 2004, 13:32

Gerald Ford? Now what did he get up to? More photo-ops while his country was being attacked?
Try this link CK (http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants47.html)

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 13:40

In fact, it would probably be fair to say that the Poms *did* cover themselves in glory before the US showed up.

nonetheless, France and Britain would've both been lost to the Germans in ww2 if the americans had not joined in. The French, after all, are the cheese eating surrender monkeys of the world!

Hitcher

15th September 2004, 14:03

The French, after all, are the cheese eating surrender monkeys of the world!
That's a bit harsh! How many times have the French "surrendered" in the manner you outline? Once, perhaps? And what choice did they have when faced with the German onslaught? I guess they could have put up some token resistance and had their cities bombed flat as a result. The French are a pragmatic people with enough knowledge of history to know that their day would come...

jrandom

15th September 2004, 14:09

nonetheless, France and Britain would've both been lost to the Germans in ww2 if the americans had not joined in. The French, after all, are the cheese eating surrender monkeys of the world!

France, perhaps. Maybe.

I'm not going to have a big detailed thrash about it here; suffice to say, I think you could stand to be better informed.

I'll probably splash out soon and actually *buy* the copy of WC's book that I've been sneaking off to Borders to read for the last few weekends. Wanna borrow it once I'm done? He has a very readable turn of phrase.

jrandom

15th September 2004, 14:11

The French are a pragmatic people with enough knowledge of history to know that their day would come...

I think just about EVERYBODY in this thread so far has displayed a certain amount of programmed prejudice and mis-informed assumption.

Perhaps we could just set up a roster for borrowing my abovementioned book, and then get back to Bush-bashing.

Hoon

15th September 2004, 14:25

Did you guys know that when King George 1st (daddy bush) was in charge
Dick Cheney was Sec of Defence,
He Orderd Colin Powell to draw up plans to Nuke Baghdad
I would hate to see him in charge :wacko:

Did you know that George Bush Snr was in a meeting with Osama Bin Ladens half brother on the morning of Sept 11th? It is speculated that Bin Ladens Oil Rich Saudi family have invested millions into George Bushs Oil companies, hence the reason Bush safely ushered 24 members of Bin ladens family out of the US 2 days after 9/11.

Its all about the oil!! George Bush Snr was after it and now so is his son.

riffer

15th September 2004, 14:31

That's a bit harsh! How many times have the French "surrendered" in the manner you outline? Once, perhaps? And what choice did they have when faced with the German onslaught? I guess they could have put up some token resistance and had their cities bombed flat as a result. The French are a pragmatic people with enough knowledge of history to know that their day would come...
Interestingly, when Google first got big about 7 years ago I typed my name into it (as you do) to see what would come up.

Turns out I had a namesake who was a pivotal figure in the Jewish Community in Paris, who had the unmitigated gall to try and persuade the local people to rise up against the German actions just before the war started.

Unfortunately for him, when the Germans arrived he, his wife and children, were all strung up for their troubles...

jrandom

15th September 2004, 15:25

Interestingly, when Google first got big about 7 years ago I typed my name into it (as you do) to see what would come up.

My most interesting namesake appears to be the head of marketing from some poncy jewellery design outfit in Brazil.

Funnily enough, I think he's my third (or thereabouts) cousin. I have no idea whether he knows that he has relatives in this part of the Southern Hemisphere.

MikeL

15th September 2004, 15:30

I think just about EVERYBODY in this thread so far has displayed a certain amount of programmed prejudice and mis-informed assumption.

It's very disappointing to see the sad old anti-French stereotypes trotted out time after time. British dislike of the French is deeply ingrained (and reciprocated) for quite understandable historical reasons, but it would be good to put aside prejudices and look at the facts a bit more objectively. The French situation in 1939 was militarily and politically complex enough not to warrant the easy accusation of cowardly capitulation. Let's not forget the fact that had Germany proved superior our textbooks would now be referring to the patriotic Mosely and the traitor Churchill...

jrandom

15th September 2004, 15:34

The French situation in 1939 was militarily and politically complex enough not to warrant the easy accusation of cowardly capitulation.

Once again, drawing from Mr Churchill's history, and as already commented on here, by 1939 the French had little or no choice in the matter.

The *British* were, in fact, primarily responsible for that situation, due to their strenuous efforts towards disarmament of the Allies over the 20 years prior.

Hitcher

15th September 2004, 15:40

(Hobby horse waits patiently for apology to the French people for "surrender monkey" comment)

jrandom

15th September 2004, 15:42

(Hobby horse waits patiently for apology to the French people for "surrender monkey" comment)

"Nous avons la ligne de Maginot, et trois cents types différents de fromage! Nous sommes invincibles!"

Hitcher

15th September 2004, 15:54

"Nous avons la ligne de Maginot, et trois cents types différents de fromage! Nous sommes invincibles!"
"Parlez franglais et le monde is votre oyster!"

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 17:45

France, perhaps. Maybe.

I'm not going to have a big detailed thrash about it here; suffice to say, I think you could stand to be better informed.

I'll probably splash out soon and actually *buy* the copy of WC's book that I've been sneaking off to Borders to read for the last few weekends. Wanna borrow it once I'm done? He has a very readable turn of phrase.

aww J, thats a bit dissapointing given the old french humour thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=3786&page=1&pp=15&highlight=cheese+eating)comments you made!

I'd love to borrow it. I've heard WC was quite the naughty boy in many ways.. I'd be interested to hear his views.

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 17:49

It's very disappointing to see the sad old anti-French stereotypes trotted out time after time. British dislike of the French is deeply ingrained (and reciprocated) for quite understandable historical reasons, but it would be good to put aside prejudices and look at the facts a bit more objectively. The French situation in 1939 was militarily and politically complex enough not to warrant the easy accusation of cowardly capitulation. Let's not forget the fact that had Germany proved superior our textbooks would now be referring to the patriotic Mosely and the traitor Churchill...

Mike, you do remember posting this right?

And BTW before you get so smug about Anglo-Saxon military prowess, do you really think Britain would have held out against Nazi Germany indefinitely if the Yanks hadn't entered the war, and got the bomb first?

i'm getting mixed messages from you boys! Needless to say, I'm mainly dissappointed that I can't even have a light hearted go at the french without an apology being demanded! (unless you're French Hitcher, in which case I will back off... otherwise they're fair game)

methinks Political Correctness is getting WAAAAAY out of hand in this country

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 18:07

Try this link CK (http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants47.html)

ahhhh! interesting reading! (no wonder America has some unique social issues)

From reading that, Gerald Ford clearly seems to qualify as a 'bad man'. But he doesn't seem to come across as stupid. Crooked as a dogs hing leg, quite possibly! I still reckon Dubya has the title

Coldkiwi

15th September 2004, 18:10

Perhaps we could just set up a roster for borrowing my abovementioned book, and then get back to Bush-bashing.

the sad part is, its all true! (http://www.dubyaspeak.com)

Kickaha

15th September 2004, 18:41

nonetheless, France and Britain would've both been lost to the Germans in ww2 if the americans had not joined in. The French, after all, are the cheese eating surrender monkeys of the world!

Well France was lost but only temporarily and even if the US hadn't entered the war in Europe I doubt Britain would have been successfully invaded as there was a bit of a distraction involving Russia going on.

jrandom

15th September 2004, 19:46

aww J, thats a bit dissapointing given the old french humour thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=3786&page=1&pp=15&highlight=cheese+eating) comments you made!

My comments were intentionally tongue-in-cheek, there.

And I really must admit to learning quite a bit from a few hours spent reading the details of what actually went on. I now have an Opinion on the sociopolitical precursors to WW2.

I'd love to borrow it.

I'll PM you when I own it and have finished chewing in a week or two's time.

I've heard WC was quite the naughty boy in many ways.. I'd be interested to hear his views.

Well, it *is* more of a history than an autobiography. Quite factual, not much invective or opinion. It's about the war, not the author.

MikeL

15th September 2004, 23:13

Mike, you do remember posting this right?

And BTW before you get so smug about Anglo-Saxon military prowess, do you really think Britain would have held out against Nazi Germany indefinitely if the Yanks hadn't entered the war, and got the bomb first?

i'm getting mixed messages from you boys! Needless to say, I'm mainly dissappointed that I can't even have a light hearted go at the french without an apology being demanded! (unless you're French Hitcher, in which case I will back off... otherwise they're fair game)

methinks Political Correctness is getting WAAAAAY out of hand in this country

I don't see any inconsistency in my 2 statements.
But I do see some unfairness in your "light-hearted go at the French", and as an ardent Francophile and erstwhile resident of that country I naturally spring to their defence...

Hitcher

16th September 2004, 08:58

methinks Political Correctness is getting WAAAAAY out of hand in this country
You have my total agreement on that one!

Coldkiwi

16th September 2004, 12:49

Drunken Monkey

16th September 2004, 13:14

Those fudge-packing, tree-hugging greenies got their just desserts...

Actually I didn't mean that. Snide comment lacking completely of substance...

Without the help of the Americans, 'victory' in Europe would still most likely have belonged to the allies via supply and movement through Russia => it would've taken a lot longer though. Remember also the Germans still didn't have a truly mechanized army. The Japanese may have been a bit harder to stop, and the pacific campaign would've had to have waited until VE. WWII could have lasted much, much longer than 6 years...
But that's just Western Historian consensus. Read a Russian history book = they teach that they were the force that turned the tides of war against the Axis.

Hitcher

16th September 2004, 14:27

Read a Russian history book = they teach that they were the force that turned the tides of war against the Axis.
And there is a great deal of truth in what they said. Unaided they fought the Germans to a standstill on the Eastern Front and had some success in driving them back to Berlin. And with no armour of any consequence, bugger all air power and extremely limited mechanised infantry. In essence they walked there!

jrandom

16th September 2004, 14:30

Unaided

Do you really think the Russians would have managed the same victories in mild, sunny weather, on firm, open terrain?

Hitcher

16th September 2004, 14:47

Do you really think the Russians would have managed the same victories in mild, sunny weather, on firm, open terrain?
That is a most excellent question. Given that they enjoyed success in entirely sub-optimal conditions and would have been able to move faster if conditions had been better, albeit with more exposed supply lines, I'd say yes. Russian military tactics were based around the premise of good old-fashioned weight of numbers and a universally bog standard, simple and reliable kit. They were also bloody good foragers and their army was prepared to endure hardships few other fighting forces before or since were able to. Mind you, dissent of any form was not tolerated!

jrandom

16th September 2004, 14:57

universally bog standard, simple and reliable kit

Yup. I love my Mosin Nagant.

Coldkiwi

16th September 2004, 15:11

Remember also the Germans still didn't have a truly mechanized army. The Japanese may have been a bit harder to stop, and the pacific campaign would've had to have waited until VE. WWII could have lasted much, much longer than 6 years...

uh- which part of the whermacht that managed to take over Poland in 3 days DIDN'T arrive by wheels, rail, tracks or wings? I understood they were pretty much the most mechanised army in the world in the early 40's?

Hitcher, I think what J's hinted at is that in a Russian winter, tanks, planes etc. are much more likely to break down and therefore their advantage is drastically limited - a bit like having a 1000hp drag bike on the waihi-whangamata road! I think that on an open, dry field, the more mechanised army would've had to be very badly handled to get beaten by predominantly foot soldiers supported by a very second rate air force.

Hitcher

16th September 2004, 15:14

Yup. I love my Mosin Nagant.
And the Kalashnikov AK47, 600 rounds a minute of 7.62mm. Also the AK101, 600 rounds a minute of 5.56mm. It would be easy to derive a great deal of comfort behind either!

Hitcher

16th September 2004, 15:18

I think that on an open, dry field, the more mechanised army would've had to be very badly handled to get beaten by predominantly foot soldiers supported by a very second rate air force.
At face value what you say is true. But don't forget that in WWII the Red Army had a decided psychological advantage when it finally decided to go on the offensive, after having ground the Germans (literally) into the ground. There would be something vaguely disquieting being in charge of a technically superior force endeavouring to quell an enemy that just kept coming at you.

jrandom

16th September 2004, 15:26

after having ground the Germans (literally) into the ground

CK's point, which I agree with, is that the Germans would have waltzed right over the Russian positions in '43 ('42? I haven't reached those chapters in Churchill yet...) and offered no opportunity for a counter-offensive, had the terrain and conditions been favourable to a mechanised assault.

[Edit: OK. Googled. 1941, the Germans planned to roll right over the Russians within a few months, failed. This was summer. I quote from the BBC:

"Not until the Red Army had decisively defeated German forces in the more favourable summer weather of 1943 did the tide really turn."

Maybe the climate contributed less to the initial defeats of the Germans than I thought.

Good article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml]

El Dopa

16th September 2004, 20:11

CK's point, which I agree with, is that the Germans would have waltzed right over the Russian positions in '43 ('42? I haven't reached those chapters in Churchill yet...) and offered no opportunity for a counter-offensive, had the terrain and conditions been favourable to a mechanised assault.

[Edit: OK. Googled. 1941, the Germans planned to roll right over the Russians within a few months, failed. This was summer. I quote from the BBC:

"Not until the Red Army had decisively defeated German forces in the more favourable summer weather of 1943 did the tide really turn."

Maybe the climate contributed less to the initial defeats of the Germans than I thought.

Good article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml]

OK, here's my tuppence worth as a keen reader of military history.

The Germans kicked Russian arse in their summer campaigns. However, Russia is so big that they were able to keep retreating almost forever (so it wouldn't really have mattered if the Germans had launched their first assault a couple of months earlier as originally planned).

The German army was only semi-mechanised. The troops were mostly on foot and the tanks were frequently miles ahead and had to wait for them to catch up so they could keep advancing. The tanks fuel and other supplies were also much slower, and as they kept advancing, the supply line kept stretching.

The Germans (well, Hitler) also made one crucial mistake, which several historians have theorised was the real turning point of the war - Stalingrad.

The urban warfare which was the result of the Germans choosing to fight here rather than concentrate on advancing, say, into the Caucausus peninsula and securing an oil supply removed their advantages (tanks, equipment, mobility, troops who were the best in the world IN THE OPEN), and handed a huge advantage to the Russians (good at the dirty infighting that is urban combat, with a natural advantage to the defender). Hitler might just as well have fed his best troops through a meatgrinder, cos that was the result.

Also, as all the best troops were fighting in the Stalingrad salient, the flanks were only held by conscripted troops from Rumania and a couple of other dodgy eastern european countries - they were not regular German army troops and were ill-motivated and ill-trained. The Russians launched a winter offensive and encircled all the best troops in Stalingrad.

Hitcher, the Russians may have been ill-equipped with tanks at the beginning of the Eastern Front campaign, but by the end of it they had one of the best tank armies in the world. The T-34 was probably the best all-round tank of WW2, and the biggest tank battle ever fought, Kursk (arguably the only time the Russians and Germans had a proper, equal, stand-up, knock-down toe-to-toe) was won by the Russians.

More info here: http://history.colstate.edu/Pate/john/kursk.htm

Whilst we're on the subject of 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys', no-one has mentioned Vichy France yet. Without wanting to bash the French (too much), they have arguably still not come to terms with the fact that a large part of their population and civil service gladly collaborated with the Germans following their (possibly premature) surrender.

The French Foreign legion mostly fought for the Germans for the remainder of the war, and the British were so (justifiably) worried that the French Navy would end up fighting for the Germans, that following the French surrender and the subsequent refusal of the French fleet to either scuttle their ships, or put them into British or Allied hands, the British Fleet bombarded and sunk them, killing several thousand French sailors. Not one of the more 'glorious' episodes of the war for either country.

Drunken Monkey

16th September 2004, 23:07

uh- which part of the whermacht that managed to take over Poland in 3 days DIDN'T arrive by wheels, rail, tracks or wings? I understood they were pretty much the most mechanised army in the world in the early 40's?

As summed up in the post immediately above:

The spearhead of panzer and luftwaffe may have smashed the poles and arrived early, plus some amount of infantry via train to major centres, but the majority of the German foot soldiers, artillery and supplies were trasnported via horse drawn carriage, I kid you not.

The T-34 was considered the best tank of the war, and by 1944 far outnumbered the second best tank of the war, the Tiger/Tiger-II...

MikeL

17th September 2004, 08:29

unfairness? is tongue in cheek not allowed anymore?

Besides, I have valid reasons for not being overly keen on them. I am quite old enough to remember the way the French Govt handled the rainbow warrior bombing and the subsequent trials/jail terms... not too mention their rather unpopular testing regime that started it all.
Their approach to foriegn policy is strangely reminiscent at times of the US - 'there are rules for you and different rules for us'.

The Rainbow Warrior and Pacific bomb tests are legitimate reasons to criticise the French, just as aspects of British policy (e.g. Northern Ireland, Iraq) have also been wrong in the view of many. It is hypocritical and unfair to extend our dislike of particular actions or policies to a general dislike of a people or nation. This is just prejudice. The French on the whole are no better or worse, moral or immoral, wise or foolish than others. They just speak a different language and live their lives differently than you.

And however much the aftermath of the Rainbow Warrior affair rankles, this is Realpolitik and all powerful nations behave the same way. Delve into modern British history and you will uncover some very unsavoury actions...

Drunken Monkey

17th September 2004, 08:35

Do I detekt a subtle chaИge to cyЯillic there, Mike?

Coldkiwi

17th September 2004, 13:19

The Rainbow Warrior and Pacific bomb tests are legitimate reasons to criticise the French, just as aspects of British policy (e.g. Northern Ireland, Iraq) have also been wrong in the view of many. It is hypocritical and unfair to extend our dislike of particular actions or policies to a general dislike of a people or nation. This is just prejudice. The French on the whole are no better or worse, moral or immoral, wise or foolish than others. They just speak a different language and live their lives differently than you.

And however much the aftermath of the Rainbow Warrior affair rankles, this is Realpolitik and all powerful nations behave the same way. Delve into modern British history and you will uncover some very unsavoury actions...

Well, I did say neither the Poms nor the French were covering themselves in glory before the US arrived in WW2 and I'm not harbouring any illusions that they're squeaky clean now either.

As another aside, I must say my scepticism towards the idea of 'they're just living different lives' is a hindered by the number of people who have returned from trips to France and complained how rude the locals have been. Admittedly, most of these have been centred around the Parisians but its hardly a glowing reflection when compared to people who have travelled to other countries around the globe and done nothing on their return but marvel at how friendly they were (canadians, hawaiians and fijians are the ones I've personally experienced but the italians readily spring ot mind too).

Coldkiwi

17th September 2004, 13:38

Whilst we're on the subject of 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys', no-one has mentioned Vichy France yet. Without wanting to bash the French (too much), they have arguably still not come to terms with the fact that a large part of their population and civil service gladly collaborated with the Germans following their (possibly premature) surrender.

He said it Mike, not me!! :niceone:

Thanks for the history El Dopa. Makes interesting reading. I would agree about the T34 being a winner, as I recall from my military nerd days (can't help it when living in Hawaii!) that the T34 was used by a lot of countries for many, many years after WW2 - a bit like the A4 skyhawk is for so many airforces these days despite being designed in the 1950's.
"If it ain't broke, Don't fix it!"

Drunken Monkey

17th September 2004, 17:05

... by the number of people who have returned from trips to France and complained how rude the locals have been. Admittedly, most of these have been centred around the Parisians ...

From personal experience, it seemed to me the people who thought the French were rude would typically ask for help with a drawly "hey maaaate, can yew..." or twangy "Hey misterrr..."

I would ask, in probably the worst 'french' (I use the term loosely) you've ever heard for assistance, and was always greeted with a smile and "Engleesh is ok, you need to..."

The French just don't appreciate people who don't even try.

The Germans were much the same, although 2 years of schoolboy German and an interest in WWII parephenalia and films made it much easier to attempt communication in that tongue.

But like I said, that's just my personal experience...

El Dopa

18th September 2004, 09:21

He said it Mike, not me!! :niceone:

The Rainbow Warrior and Pacific bomb tests are legitimate reasons to criticise the French, just as aspects of British policy (e.g. Northern Ireland, Iraq) have also been wrong in the view of many. It is hypocritical and unfair to extend our dislike of particular actions or policies to a general dislike of a people or nation. This is just prejudice. The French on the whole are no better or worse, moral or immoral, wise or foolish than others. They just speak a different language and live their lives differently than you.

And however much the aftermath of the Rainbow Warrior affair rankles, this is Realpolitik and all powerful nations behave the same way. Delve into modern British history and you will uncover some very unsavoury actions...

Hmm, a bit disapointed that adding a dash of troll to my post didn't provoke more of a response :) .

However, I agree with Mikes comments. There's plenty of shamful behaviour in British history that gets ignored. Might makes right and unrestrained power corrupts

Drunken Monkey

18th September 2004, 11:29

....Might makes right...

Might does make right. What is law? Law is only as good as enforcement...

...unrestrained power corrupts

Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

El Dopa

18th September 2004, 14:53

Might does make right. What is law? Law is only as good as enforcement...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Kinda what I was getting at. Dragging this thread back towards the original topic, the discrepancies between the ideals governments profess to aspire to, and the actions they actually carry out to retain control of their own power base (usuallly blatantly opposed to the words coming out of their fat, lying mouths) never ceases to disapoint me.

Coldkiwi

20th September 2004, 13:22

From personal experience, it seemed to me the people who thought the French were rude would typically ask for help with a drawly "hey maaaate, can yew..." or twangy "Hey misterrr..."

I would ask, in probably the worst 'french' (I use the term loosely) you've ever heard for assistance, and was always greeted with a smile and "Engleesh is ok, you need to..."

The French just don't appreciate people who don't even try.

that I could understand but when you get to hear several stories of relatively couth (sp?) people asking for assistance in Paris and the locals playing dumb (until some non-pom asked) ...its a little harder to keep the tar off the locals.

Dunno... maybe I should just stop prattling on and go there for myself (and always retain a train ticket to flee to Italy in case I need therapy from the food!)

Coldkiwi

20th September 2004, 13:27

[QUOTE=Drunken Monkey]Might does make right. What is law? Law is only as good as enforcement...
QUOTE]

Good point. So does the World Court actually have any ability to enforce the correct application of power? Last I recall hearing about it, the US were ignoring some ruling from them...

Drunken Monkey

20th September 2004, 13:35

that I could understand but when you get to hear several stories of relatively couth (sp?) people asking for assistance in Paris and the locals playing dumb (until some non-pom asked) ...its a little harder to keep the tar off the locals.

Dunno... maybe I should just stop prattling on and go there for myself (and always retain a train ticket to flee to Italy in case I need therapy from the food!)

True, the French have a disdain for the English (and also Americans) which can only be rivalled by the English disdain for the French - I guess no matter how polite you are, you may get an up-turned nose if you look/sound English. Lucky for me I don't look English.
I've never heard of the French stand up on a British Airways flight singing 'stand up if you hate the English' (Yes, I did meet a pom who stood up on an Air France flight to HK singing 'stand up if you hate the French'... :)

France is a nice country, especially the South, like Nice. Provance is also a lovely place. Unfortunately I've only had the pleasure of visiting for a few days. My parents recently returned from a 6 week long stay in France.

Drunken Monkey

20th September 2004, 13:39

Good point. So does the World Court actually have any ability to enforce the correct application of power? Last I recall hearing about it, the US were ignoring some ruling from them...

Only in lip-service. It's easy for them [World Court] to chase after individual loonies like Milosevic, but when a powerful Nation 'defies' them, well what can you do...
Remeber the Yanks, et al, proceeded with the Iraq invasion despite not having UN Security Council approval. Why? Because they could.

Ghost Lemur

20th September 2004, 14:40

Yeah unfortunately like everything else on the world stage, when the US couldn't get their mandatory loopholes put it (You know the ones that let them say one thing and bag on countries you disobey and then do another thing).

In the case of the Landmine treaty they wanting to continue using and selling them. In the case of the world court they wanted their "piece" keepers to be immune from prosecution.

Sort of says something I think about just how willing the US is to stand by internation law. But everyone being held as a Enemy Combatant (I mean WTF) already knows that anyway.

Indiana_Jones

20th September 2004, 15:08

We're screwed, some Asian nation is gonna invade us for Lebensraum and I doubt any western nation will help us :shit:

-Indy

Lou Girardin

22nd September 2004, 16:56

Now, why would the Pom's be so loathed in Europe. Could it be;
Soccer louts, 18 to 30's package holiday-makers, crims hiding on the Costa del Sol.
Booze buying trips to Calais. Beats me.
But I'm told the Germans are as bad. Just better looking.

El Dopa

22nd September 2004, 18:10

But I'm told the Germans are as bad. Just better looking.

Whilst I agree with almost everything you have said, I take considerable offence at being thought of as less good looking than a German. :laugh:

If you'll excuse the decent into mouth-foaming xenophobic stereotyping for one moment, they're a bunch of unshaven sausage-munching saurkraut-swilling squareheads. And that's just the women. :)

riffer

23rd September 2004, 08:37

More quotes from George Bush:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/dsbush.html

riffer

23rd September 2004, 11:20

Even more quotes from George Bush:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/movies/0805041bush.mov

ManDownUnder

23rd September 2004, 13:02

I saw an brilliant program a couple of months ago that nicely outlined why democracy and capitalism are diametrically opposed, where there is one you naturally can't have the other.

I can't recall the arguments but they were very compelling and all evidenced in the US political structures.

Remind me... when was the last poor presidential candidate?

My vote for US president... neither of those two clowns... maybe Mandela or anyone else that knows hardship, has seen what it's like to be oppressed, and had the personal strength and resolve to rise above it.

MDU

Lou Girardin

25th September 2004, 15:15

Ahh. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Who remembers the unnamed US Captain in Vietnam, quoted as saying "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
Well, it appears that after 'insurgents' destroyed yet another Bradley in Iraq, an Apache pilot was concerned for the safety of a crowd that gathered around the still burning vehicle some hours later. So to 'save' them from possible ordinance explosions, he rocketed the Bradley. Killed twelve, injured dozens.
'We gave then freedom and they STILL don't like us.'

MikeL

25th September 2004, 16:01

We're screwed, some Asian nation is gonna invade us for Lebensraum and I doubt any western nation will help us :shit:

-Indy

And on what do you base this opinion?

Should I infer that you think that only getting into bed with Uncle Sam will save us?

MikeL

25th September 2004, 16:33

Dunno... maybe I should just stop prattling on and go there for myself

Good idea. And when you're packing for the trip, don't forget the French phrasebook and a few volumes outlining French history, art and culture.

Why do so many Anglo-Saxons return from Europe with tales of arrogance, rudeness and the like?

Partly because they are tourists and the mass tourism industry treats travellers as units of consumption, not real human beings. Is it surprising that your Italian waiter is off-hand, even surly? What difference does it make to him if you come back tomorrow or not?

But the main reason is that most English-speaking travellers go with the wrong attitude. Smug in the superiority of their language, culture, politics, religion or whatever, and scarcely stopping to consider that the purpose of travel is to discover and savour the alienness of a strange land, they refuse to meet the foreigner half-way, or indeed any way at all except on their own cultural territory.

Years ago I was on a bus in Sorrento when a middle-aged Kiwi who had drunk more freely of the vino rosso at lunch than was wise demanded that the bus driver stop so that he could relieve himself. I didn't expect him to be able to explain in Italian what he wanted, but his anger and frustration at the bus driver's inability to understand the phrases "spend a penny" and "take a leak" was incomprehensible to me, as well as acutely embarrassing to most of us on the bus.

Study the culture, learn to speak the language, travel with intellectual curiosity and modesty, and then see whether arrogance and rudeness are the order of the day. I think not.