NEW: The Determination of the Iraqis

[NOFXdesendents5]

My dad just showed me an article, in which it describes how, earlier today, more than a dozen iraqi troops crossed the border and surrendered to British troops. They had seen a British army doing training procedjures (sp?) and thought the war had already begun.


LINK: http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694

heh heh, the war hasnt begun and it is already looking like the gulf.

[WithStamin]

Yep, Iraq knows that they don't stand a chance. They won't last for a second outside of Baghdad.

[kidinthecorner]

Hey, don't most Iraqi citizens think they won the Gulf war? I believe I cought that one on CNN or some other TV thing. Saddam must be a master of propaganda to pull that one off.

[yeat182]

the iraqi army will cave faster than the french in WWII.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by yeat182
the iraqi army will cave faster than the french in WWII. I don't think that's physically possible.

[kidinthecorner]

o shit, lemme venture to one of my other boards and bring back this thing about the french. Its quite a laugh. I'll be back in a minute or so.

[kidinthecorner]

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, the French, in all their military glory:

THE COMPLETE MILITARY HISTORY OF FRANCE
THE COMPLETE MILITARY HISTORY OF FRANCE
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome" and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States and Britain. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plea sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless, noisy baggage behind." Jed Babbin, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense.

[NOFXdesendents5]

worlds best links

___________________________________ _________________
http://www.francesucks.com/

http://www.francesurrenders.com/

http://www.fuckfrance.com/

[zach]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yep, Iraq knows that they don't stand a chance. They won't last for a second outside of Baghdad.
Thats why saddam is preparing for urban warfare
Hey, don't most Iraqi citizens think they won the Gulf war? I believe I cought that one on CNN or some other TV thing. Saddam must be a master of propaganda to pull that one off.
as far as he is concernd a victory means he is still in power.
On a slightly related note, is it true in the US students are tought that the war of 1812 was a tie?

[yeat182]

i know i was never taught it was a tie...

[zach]

yeah, I was just curious. Alot of My american reletives told me that they were tought it was a tie, and I couldn't figure how it could be conciderd a tie.

[yeat182]

yeah, thats weird, i don't see how it could be tie either...

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by zach
yeah, I was just curious. Alot of My american reletives told me that they were tought it was a tie, and I couldn't figure how it could be conciderd a tie.

well yes, the war was a victory, but overall it was a tie. We gave those guys a royal ass-fuck and destroyed almost all of their weapons. but when it came done to surrender terms, we lost.
we let the iraquis continue to do a number of things:

-use choppers and planes
-manufacture small arms and tanks
-and we didnt persicute iraq.

we pretty much stopped on baghdad's doorstep and went back. by letting saddam get away and not sending him to exile, he continued whatever he was doing and now we have to deal with this war shit.

here is a math equation:

fighting = +
conditions = -

+ and - equal nothing.

[blaarg]

Originally posted by zach
yeah, I was just curious. Alot of My american reletives told me that they were tought it was a tie, and I couldn't figure how it could be conciderd a tie.
i was tought it was a tie, if word got out that america lost to canada, reality as we know it would cease to exist.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
well yes, the war was a victory, but overall it was a tie. We gave those guys a royal ass-fuck and destroyed almost all of their weapons. but when it came done to surrender terms, we lost.
we let the iraquis continue to do a number of things:

-use choppers and planes
-manufacture small arms and tanks
-and we didnt persicute iraq.

we pretty much stopped on baghdad's doorstep and went back. by letting saddam get away and not sending him to exile, he continued whatever he was doing and now we have to deal with this war shit.

here is a math equation:

fighting = +
conditions = -

+ and - equal nothing.


we are talking about the war of 1812, there were no choppers, planes, tanks, or Iraqi's involved....

[zach]

or american victories. No matter how you look at, The US lost that one.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by blaarg
i was tought it was a tie, if word got out that america lost to canada, reality as we know it would cease to exist.

it was a loss in that we didn't conquer canada, but that wasn't the reason we wen't to war, so we did achieve our main objectives.

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by yeat182
we are talking about the war of 1812, there were no choppers, planes, tanks, or Iraqi's involved....

oh! i thought we were talking about the Gulf!

lol, sorry!

[zach]

Originally posted by yeat182
i was tought it was a win, the english tried to invade, and we're driven back, they did burn the white house and briefly hold D.C. , but we defeated them at the battle of New Orleans in 1814....although the war had been officially ended just weeks before the battle. still, the brits were defeated nonetheless.
If I recall correctly, The US launched an unprecedented attack on canada. They didn't get any canadian land. You lost. terribly sorry

[yeat182]

Originally posted by zach
If I recall correctly, The US launched an unprecedented attack on canada. They didn't get any canadian land. You lost. terribly sorry

we didn't gain territory in canada, but we defeated the british invasion of the US, and ended the british blockades on neutral shipping and the impressment of american sailors. so i suppose in retrospect it could be called a draw, but if it were a hockey game we'd get 2 points for an overtime win and the brits would get one for an overtime loss...

[zach]

as far as I know the only "american" sailors that were imprissond were brits who jumped ship and joined the american navy. I think there may have been one ship that was unjustly imprissond, but you guys lost.

[yeat182]

there were many american sailors unjustly impressed, and i don't see how we could have lost..

[zach]

again, most of the "american" sailors were brits who jumped ship.

[yeat182]

again, they were american merchant vessels, with american sailors, who were stopped under the guise of searching for british deserters, and american sailors who were taken away...

From the historychannel.com (http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=35251) "By the end of 1807, the British had impressed over six thousand American sailors."

[kidinthecorner]

Anyone ever see "Canadian Bacon"? Now THAT's a good movie about USA vs Canada!

[your moms hot]

since you guys like math so much...heres an equation for ya:

history = propaganda

i got an english friend who was taught in england that england just gave up the colonies after the rebellion...not that we defeated the premier army in the world at that time...so whats that teach us??

[yeat182]

that the english are sore losers?