Which "Coalition of the Willing" have troops in Ir [Archive]

Sharky79

08-21-2003, 05:18 PM

Just curious wich countries sent troops to Iraq to support the US and British Forces, units and numbers?

From what I gathered so far here is a list, the countries with "?" where mentioned to have sent troops to Iraq but I could not find anymore data on the units sent.

-Albania 70
-Australia 1,000 (down from 2,000 during the combat phase)
-Azerbaijan ?
-Bulgarians 500 paratroopers ( data supplied by To Free the Oppressed)
-Czechs ? there was a chemical weapons team during the war.
-Denmark 380
-Dutch ?
-Dominican Republic ?
-El Salvador ?
-Estonia ?
-Georgia 34 person Infantry Platoon from the Kojori Special Forces Battalion, a 20 person Medical team including 13 women, and a 15 man Engineer Detachment from the Ministry of Defense's Rapid Reaction Force. (Data supplied by To Free the Oppressed)
-Hundoras 370 (Infantry and MPs)
-Hungarians ?
-Italy 100 (1,700 scheduled)
-Japan ? (they sent a support ship? or was that for Afghanistan?)
-Kazakhs ?
-Latvia ?
-Lithuanians 45 (50 more scheduled to join, troops belong to Grand Duke Algirdas Motorized Infantry Battalion)
-Macedonia ?
-Mongolia ?
-Neatherlands ?
-New Zealand 60 combat engineers.
-Nicaragua ?
-Norwegians ?
-Philippines 55 soldiers 26 MPs 15 Medical personnel (39 medical personnel being scheduled but 500 was promised to Bush)
-Poles 300 ( another 2,000 more by Sept. 50 of these belong to Grupa
Reagowania Operacyjno Mobilnego)
-Portugal
-Romania 70 ( 400 more)
-Slovakia ?
-S.Korea ?
-Spain 1,300
-Turkey ? (The Americans are asking for 10,000)
-Ukranians 1,800+

Poland will head this mismash of smaller units which are expected to number around 9,000 financed by the US.

India was offering 17,000 troops before but backed out because of political pressure. The US is trying to "buy" these troops from India for the transfer of the Arrow-2 missile system from Israel. The US is also trying court Pakistan with $3 billion.

If this new UN resolution that the US is asking to do, asking for more troops, go through, will Germany and France finally send help?

dez000

08-21-2003, 05:27 PM

First of all... Dutch and Netherlands is the same

Duth is the language
Netherland is the country...

Nederland currently has a detachment of Marines in Iraq...

Ichhabe

08-21-2003, 09:11 PM

Vance

08-21-2003, 09:44 PM

Hey Ichhabe....I still have the poster you sent me of the SOF soldiers on my wall, above my computer. :D

usa320

08-21-2003, 09:49 PM

Indeed, there are Dutch marines in Iraq- tough bunch they are too.

Ichhabe go screw yourself. Last time i checked Australia, UK, Poland, South Korea and Japan are not 3rd world countries.

FOr some reason, despite the fact that the the large majority of nations support the mission in iraq, some assholes still feel that no one supports it simply because the coalition of the unwilling (germany and france) do not... and those people can go screw themselves or go kiss and make up with the Batthist scumbags.

[AFSOC]

08-21-2003, 10:26 PM

True....

But a lot of those countries cant support the coalition on the ground with troops. Maybe with food, supply's etc.

We need more ground troops there policing, such as the Canadians, Germans, Russians etc. Thing is Canada is too busy with stuff in Europe and Afghanistan, and the Germans are in Afghanistan too.

Yeah i know Russia and Germany were against the war, but the war is over its time to get along again and work together to show the non-believers ie. Terrorist that we and Iraqi's can build a greater country.

Ichhabe

08-21-2003, 10:33 PM

usa320 said:

Ichhabe go screw yourself. Last time i checked Australia, UK, Poland, South Korea and Japan are not 3rd world countries.

Most of the countries on that list are'nt able to rub two coins together. They give the word "poor" a new and deeper meaning.

And btw, take your hillbilly-language with you and take a long walk in the Appalachian mountains,... and stay there.

Ratamacue

08-21-2003, 10:38 PM

Yeah, usa320, that was pretty damn uncalled for and not to smooth on your part.

[AFSOC]

08-21-2003, 10:38 PM

By the way...

Poland aint a first world nation. Its a developing nation, its no Canada, USA, UK, Australia etc.

usa320

08-22-2003, 12:01 AM

Its not first world, but its not 3rd world either...its developing.

HUGE difference...

And i rather be a crude hillbilly than a queer leftist anyday. :slap:

[AFSOC]

08-22-2003, 01:10 AM

There is a huge difference there smart one.

Look up what it means be a first world country then you'd understand instead of being being an ignorant ass.

Ratamacue

08-22-2003, 01:14 AM

Will you both shut the hell up? Jesus Christ....

[AFSOC]

08-22-2003, 01:36 AM

What the **** is your problem?

I just stating that Poland aint first world

usa320

08-22-2003, 01:46 AM

Exactly, i said....1) theres a huge difference between 1st world and developing. 2) theres a huge difference between developing and 3rd world.

Ratamacue

08-22-2003, 01:57 AM

:cantbeli:

Seiyuuki

08-22-2003, 02:04 AM

Most of the countries on that list are'nt able to rub two coins together. They give the word "poor" a new and deeper meaning.

The high and mighty first world country speak, how noble of them. Then again, there's nothing wrong with looking down upon these pathetic countries when your own country is not redefining "poor" into a new and deeper meaning.

Sharky79

08-22-2003, 08:19 AM

Coalition of the willing; what kind of a schmuck came up with such an idiotic name???

And No; Norway was not part of that stupid named group of poor 3. world countries kissing the US of A's government. Isj!!!

I did my research friend, so should you before you say anything.

http://www.norway.org/newsofnorway/news.cfm?id=629

....A company of Norwegian soldiers will take part in the rebuilding of Iraq. In July, 150 men and women of the Telemark Engineer squadron were sent to the Basra area in southern Iraq as Norway’s contribution toward stabilizing the war-torn country....

budanski

08-22-2003, 08:54 AM

Why don't you just hit him below the belt (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798207.html) then? ;)

usa320

08-22-2003, 12:11 PM

Thats funny, he didnt even know his own troops were in iraq...what a fool.

Ichhabe

08-22-2003, 03:53 PM

Thats funny, he didnt even know his own troops were in iraq...what a fool.

Eeeeh?!? I did know that. I known that since before they went down there. My platoon comander from my time in Afghanistan is down there right now.
So my question to you usa320 should be; Every time Norway send soldiers abroad, do I have to run to this forum and inform you???

What my comment was on that socalled "Coalition of the Willing". A name I find both stupid AND insulting.

That the USA used methods to treathen allies in to "submition" and using concealed "threaths" on allies that have been among their best friends for over 60 years.
Same go for these poor countries that knows that if not waging the tail, they will lose money aid from uncle Sam. THAT is what sickens me.

Ichhabe

08-22-2003, 03:58 PM

[quote="Sharky79"]

I did my research friend, so should you before you say anything.

quote]

And I still refer to my research; Norway ain't part of your stinking "Coalition of the Willing"

And while you're on that research part, do learn the difference/similarity of Dutch and Netherland... Btw, some calls it Holland aswell to add some more confution to your research.

And why do you use the mix of contry and origin of country? Hmm?!?

Sharky79

08-22-2003, 03:59 PM

^Will your guys (Norwegians) be operating independently? be under the command of the main occupiers (US and UK)? or will they be mixed in with the units being led by the Poles?

This is something big for Poland, being put center stage and given alot of responsibility. Maybe they are being groomed by America and the UK to be the leader of an EU group to counter balance the French and German quasi partnership.... hmmm... something to wonder about.

Ichhabe

08-22-2003, 04:03 PM

The Norwegian Engineer company is under British command.

And what the Poles do, I prefer holding it for myself on what I think of it.

Sharky79

08-22-2003, 04:04 PM

Oh, believe what you will friend. The way I am looking at it, is that if you are in Iraq and not under the UN but under one of the "Coalition of the Willing" country then you are one of us. I could be wrong, not forcing you though to look at it my way.

peace

[quote=Sharky79]

I did my research friend, so should you before you say anything.

quote]

And I still refer to my research; Norway ain't part of your stinking "Coalition of the Willing"

And while you're on that research part, do learn the difference/similarity of Dutch and Netherland... Btw, some calls it Holland aswell to add some more confution to your research.

And why do you use the mix of contry and origin of country? Hmm?!?

He219

08-22-2003, 04:10 PM

Why don't you just hit him below the belt then?

rofl

duck

08-22-2003, 04:11 PM

UoUo

08-22-2003, 04:19 PM

why didn't you remind him where was norway in ww2....with out US.

Herrmannek

08-22-2003, 04:29 PM

Poland decided to hand over a part of their designated area being deemed "too dangerous" for them to US forces after the latest attacks. The AO they will abandon is just south of Baghdad. Still they are doing more for a free and prosperous Iraq than most others.

I'm not sure that "Poland decided..." from my knowlegde it was US decision but can be wrong.

Lets back to developing countrys. Stagnation is very close to retardation
so shut your mouth up.

doxodoxo

10-24-2005, 07:13 AM

"Albania - 70"

Number of Albanian troops in Iraq is now 120, with a possibility of increasing it to 500 (although unlikely).

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 07:37 AM

why didn't you remind him where was norway in ww2....with out US.

Dude the norwegians put more of a fight than many and when Americans get all mighty that they won the war, it gets peoples back up. Americans contribution was valuable, but not there from day one nor all that won it.

Ichhabe, I guess the lack of sunshine is getting to you up there, if Norway is providing troops they are part of the CF and can be considered now under the umbrella of the coalition of the willing.

The 4 biggest contibutors in order of numbers are
USA
Contractors
UK
Aus

There is a somewhat old but interesting article here:
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/COERCED.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalition_of_the_willing
^is a good resource for information about the CF there is a link somewhere with all numbers of troops and USAID contributions.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/118479.html : this is an article about bush asking for 400mil to pay off members

Without a doubt the coalition of the willing has some coerced members that have sent troops in exchange for benefits from the US, and some countries contribution is political only (several countries troops do nothing but secure the MWR in an already secure FOB.) But not all countries involved are getting benefits or providing troops that cant be used outside the wire. Nor are they all 3rd world countries.

I cant find my link for numbers and speculated benefits, but I did a lot of research on this myself and could find no direct link between troops numbers and benfits recieved. Many of the countries that have provided troops have since had a drop in USIAD contributions, rather than an increase.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 08:01 AM

kind of old but some info about the mission in Iraq for both the Dutch and the Netherlands ;)

Dutch involvement went from july 2003 to april 2005 and a total of 7.568 troops were deployed to the southern Al Muthanna province under British command.
Main part of the first 2 detachment was a marine battallion the last three were army personnel. besides the infantry battallion there was a engineering detachment which built a bridge and some dikes to prevent flooding of the Eufrates river among other things and there was a mobile field hospital and mortar tracking radars.
There was a helodetachment with 4 chinooks which was later replaced with 3 Cougars. and later in the mission 6 Apaches.
70 Commando's were send in december 2004 because of increasing tensions but they were withdrawn early 2005 the rest of the detachment stayed until elections and was then withdrawn as agreed with the US and the Iraqi's, the battallion was replaced with British and Australian troops.

The Dutch detachment varied in size between 1200 and 1500 troops and about 600 Japanese troops, and lost 2 soldiers killed and maybe a dozen wounded.

mack pl

10-24-2005, 08:08 AM

The 4 biggest contibutors in order of numbers are
USA
Contractors
UK
Aus

.

what about Italy or Poland? ;)

well, we have about 1400 soldiers right now, but in the past there was almost 2500 of Polish soldiers in Iraq.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 08:09 AM

you think he forgot about them?

mack pl

10-24-2005, 08:13 AM

you think he forgot about them?

everyones forget Poland p-)

sp2c

10-24-2005, 08:15 AM

you guys should just leave Iraq without telling anybody :)

mack pl

10-24-2005, 08:17 AM

you guys should just leave Iraq without telling anybody :)

hahahaa, thats our plan, mate p-)

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 08:19 AM

what about Italy or Poland? ;)

well, we have about 1400 soldiers right now, but in the past there was almost 2500 of Polish soldiers in Iraq.

They arent in the 4 biggest. Why would I include them?

sp2c

10-24-2005, 08:25 AM

They arent in the 4 biggest. Why would I include them?
yes they are

afaik Australia has 1320 troops in Iraq atm, so the Polish contribution 1400 (down from 2500) is bigger whereas Italy has somewhere around 3000 troops deployed

mack pl

10-24-2005, 08:27 AM

They arent in the 4 biggest. Why would I include them?

hahaa, you aint good in math, right? p-)

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 08:31 AM

My apologies, I just checked here

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

The order I quoted above was combat troops only. And I cant find a good explaination of how they came to those figures and what was included as 'combat'.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 08:35 AM

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 08:46 AM

then you're still wrong since civilian contractors obviously aren't combat troops, you should know this because you claim to be one.

you can't bs your way out of this dude ... you forgot about Poland!!!

Im not BSing my way out of anything. Contractors arent combat troops in the true sense of the word, but they do a lot more than the fobettes, like for example the koreans, japanese or Albanians. I didnt make up the list, nor decide the defenition of combat troops. Some reports would have you believe contractors are fighting alongside US troops daily.
If you ranked a list by number of insurgents killed Contractors would be second after the US. Thats from 'non combatants'.

Besides if I forgot poland I dont forget I forgot korea and italy (and ukraine, georgia and romania if you dont include the Aus navy) as well.

Dont you forget poland is pulling out now they have the Aid and deals they wanted.

roland

10-24-2005, 08:54 AM

Lets not be too hard on the coalition: now we don't want them run like cowards leaving a giant Wahaby training camp behind.
No problem or troops too: draft is there to provide enough if needed.
So no worry.
Good luck.

mack pl

10-24-2005, 09:05 AM

Dont you forget Poland is pulling out now

you can't be that sure.... some soldiers may stay in Iraq, our new government will decide how many soldiers, and in what character(instructors or smth)will stay there...

pzdr

sp2c

10-24-2005, 09:11 AM

Im not BSing my way out of anything. Contractors arent combat troops in the true sense of the word, but they do a lot more than the fobettes, like for example the koreans, japanese or Albanians. I didnt make up the list, nor decide the defenition of combat troops. Some reports would have you believe contractors are fighting alongside US troops daily.
If you ranked a list by number of insurgents killed Contractors would be second after the US. Thats from 'non combatants'.

Besides if I forgot poland I dont forget I forgot korea and italy (and ukraine, georgia and romania if you dont include the Aus navy) as well.

Dont you forget poland is pulling out now they have the Aid and deals they wanted.
How many troops did the Australians loose?
The Polish lost 17 so you might want to show just a little bit more respect then you are doing right now.

mack pl

10-24-2005, 09:15 AM

How many troops did the Australians loose?
The Polish lost 17 so you might want to show just a little bit more respect then you are doing right now.

+2 Blackwater contractors(ex GROM guys)

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 09:20 AM

How many troops did the Australians loose?
The Polish lost 17 so you might want to show just a little bit more respect then you are doing right now.

Calm down man. I missed out the BY in:

"If you ranked a list by number of insurgents killed BY Contractors would be second after the US. Thats from 'non combatants"

I am not disrespecting the polish troops nor any others. As far as I know Australia has lost nobody and seen sweet FA action. I have friends who have personally killed more insurgents than the entire aus contingent in iraq combined. (not that killing insurgents is the only good being done).

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 09:22 AM

+2 Blackwater contractors(ex GROM guys)

Come on dude. You cant count contractors. That means Germany, france and south africa, serbia, etc etc are part of the coalition

sp2c

10-24-2005, 09:26 AM

of course there's going to be more insurgents killed by contractors, there's also more contractors killed by insurgents as well then any other detachment out there other then the American forces

there's a ****load of them out there and they are an easier target then the average coalition trooper so they get attacked more often and thus shoot back more often and killing more people ... doesn't make them combat troops though, even the Japanese return fire.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 09:28 AM

0w and the Australians lost 1 soldier when some UK C130 crashed afaik

mack pl

10-24-2005, 09:30 AM

Come on dude. You cant count contractors. That means Germany, france and south africa, serbia, etc etc are part of the coalition

cool, but If I cant count contractors, why did you mentioned contractors in your first post? but, okay, nevermind....

peace

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 09:49 AM

cool, but If I cant count contractors, why did you mentioned contractors in your first post? but, okay, nevermind....

peace

A lot of websites count contractors as a single force. Collectively they make up the second largest group. The nationality of the individual contractors is never taken into account. That is because the fact that companies may hire a lot of say, peruvians or colombians, does not mean that country supports the war.

Thats what I meant by you cant count contractors: Only that you cant consider poles working for blackwater as part of Polands contribution

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 09:58 AM

of course there's going to be more insurgents killed by contractors, there's also more contractors killed by insurgents as well then any other detachment out there other then the American forces.

So we agree that by contractors, while not combat troops collectively engage with the enemy more than any of the combat troops on the ground other than US forces. For that reason alone some may classify them as combat troops when assesing the overall war.

there's a ****load of them out there and they are an easier target then the average coalition trooper so they get attacked more often and thus shoot back more often and killing more people ... doesn't make them combat troops though, even the Japanese return fire.

That just wrong and you dont know what you are talking about. Some contractors are easier targets than some military convoys, some are not. Since when did being an easy target mean you killed more enemy?

szr

10-24-2005, 10:04 AM

and when Americans get all mighty that they won the war...I thought UoUo was Israeli...

mack pl

10-24-2005, 10:05 AM

Thats what I meant by you cant count contractors: Only that you cant consider poles working for blackwater as part of Polands contribution

I see your point, thanks

peace

mack pl

10-24-2005, 10:07 AM

I thought UoUo was Israeli...

wrong, he's Iranian, take a look at his location, mate p-)

sp2c

10-24-2005, 10:09 AM

So we agree that by contractors, while not combat troops collectively engage with the enemy more than any of the combat troops on the ground other than US forces. For that reason alone some may classify them as combat troops when assesing the overall war.

no we don't agree ... contractores don't engage the enemy they get engaged by the enemy and return fire and I would not classify them as combat troops.

you can't win a war with contractors because they can't attack the enemy

That just wrong and you dont know what you are talking about.

ok

Some contractors are easier targets than some military convoys, some are not.

most are easier targets ... and most don't have helicopter gunship support either. They don't usually have their own QRF's available and they don't have the authority to start a counter offensive.

the military does, which makes the military a harder target

Since when did being an easy target mean you killed more enemy?

it means you get into firefights more often and therefore kill more often

Lazarou

10-24-2005, 10:48 AM

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 10:49 AM

Oh dude, give it a rest. Do you really think every US convoy/motorcade has its own gunship team? Do you know how long most attacks last? They are almost all over before any apache or QRF arrives. The 'easy targets' dont stick around to fight, they high tail away taking their dead and wounded. Ill can show you a video of one of the easy targets and they killed no-one but lost guys themselves. One example of many. I have rolled up on convoys of 3 humvees with the guys in the turrets ducked inside out of the wind. Thats an easier target than a company with 4 cars full of locked on guys scanning their sectors constantly.

Your crack about easy targets getting more kills is so insanely absurd I still cant believe you wrote it, not once but twice. I guess that means SOF dont have any kills and the US should train all its guys less so they can kill more inurgents.

Look, mate save yourself some embarrasement and say no more. Clearly you are war gaming this from your living room. The reality is different.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 11:04 AM

Oh dude, give it a rest. Do you really think every US convoy/motorcade has its own gunship team? Do you know how long most attacks last? They are almost all over before any apache or QRF arrives. The 'easy targets' dont stick around to fight, they high tail away taking their dead and wounded. Ill can show you a video of one of the easy targets and they killed no-one but lost guys themselves. One example of many. I have rolled up on convoys of 3 humvees with the guys in the turrets ducked inside out of the wind. Thats an easier target than a company with 4 cars full of locked on guys scanning their sectors constantly.

sure, believe what you will I don't really care

Your crack about easy targets getting more kills is so insanely absurd I still cant believe you wrote it, not once but twice. I guess that means SOF dont have any kills and the US should train all its guys less so they can kill more inurgents.

no now you're just putting words in my mouth

what I said (and I'll say it again because you don't seem to get it) is that because of the fact that they are easier targets they are attacked more often and therefore have more enemy's killed and (own personnel) killed.

it's not that hard

Look, mate save yourself some embarrasement and say no more. Clearly you are war gaming this from your living room. The reality is different.

whatever you say dude :)

mack pl

10-24-2005, 11:04 AM

It's sad how Poland is trying to get itself into the big boys' club by
letting big fat Uncle Sam a$$rape it. But then again, what else could
it do in order to get back on the world map? And Poland isn't the
only ex-commie country in Iraq... Without their contribution things would propably be even worse than they are now.

ermmm, what are you blabling about dude? So, what do you say about United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, eh? They have been also raped by USA? damn, your foreign affairs knowledge is deep....

USA asked us, if we want to send some troops, and we agreed, nothing more, we didnt meant to become world's superpower ;)

sickofpretenders

10-24-2005, 11:29 AM

what I said (and I'll say it again because you don't seem to get it) is that because of the fact that they are easier targets they are attacked more often and therefore have more enemy's killed and (own personnel) killed.

it's not that hard

3 Times. Amazing stuff. Like I said by your logic the worse soldiers are the more insurgents they kill. That is so stupid I cant even find the words to pick it to peices.

I am not 'believing what I like' I am stating facts. You have still yet to explain how the QRF and gunships can help in a 2 minute ambush or expanded on why contractors are easier targets.

ed316

10-24-2005, 11:30 AM

True friends help each other out, because later down the road they might need some help. Besides were paying for them to be there anyways.

sp2c

10-24-2005, 11:37 AM

3 Times. Amazing stuff. Like I said by your logic the worse soldiers are the more insurgents they kill.

yes and like I said you are putting words in my mouths because I never said contractors are bad at their respective jobs now did I?

That is so stupid I cant even find the words to pick it to peices.

that really isn't my problem now is it?

I am not 'believing what I like' I am stating facts. You have still yet to explain how the QRF and gunships can help in a 2 minute ambush or expanded

they can't ... there's not much you can do about that other then running for your life however if the attack goes wrong in any way the military is capable of summoning support a lot faster and even if the attacks goes well the military can respond on this a lot faster then civilian contractors.

on why contractors are easier targets.
How many instance have you heard of were military personnel have been dragged through the streets and butchered in Iraq? How many captured soldiers have been beheaded on Al Jazeera?

they are easier targets because they have less support (that's 4 if you can count that far)

Robroy

10-24-2005, 01:30 PM

True friends help each other out, because later down the road they might need some help. Besides were paying for them to be there anyways.

Albania sent 120 SF soldiers. We are waiting (and hoping) that Parliament permits to sent 180.

Lazarou

10-24-2005, 02:54 PM

True friends help each other out

I'm afraid friendship has very little to do with world politics, it's pretty much all about...

http://idata.over-blog.com/0/09/44/09/dollars.jpg

ed316

10-24-2005, 02:55 PM

I didn't mean, the holding hands and drinking type of friendship, but the political one

Robroy

10-24-2005, 02:59 PM

I'm afraid friendship has very little to do with world politics, it's pretty much all about...

http://idata.over-blog.com/0/09/44/09/dollars.jpg

well, USA gave lot of bucks to some European Countries, but they did not help USA.
As forever, Europe is waitng that the blood og American guys save their ass, and they pay nothing! European realpolitik....

ed316

10-24-2005, 03:02 PM

foxtrot023

10-24-2005, 03:54 PM

Macs.

10-24-2005, 04:02 PM

Lazarou

10-24-2005, 04:19 PM

well, USA gave lot of bucks to some European Countries, but they did not help USA.
As forever, Europe is waitng that the blood og American guys save their ass, and they pay nothing! European realpolitik....

I don't know which European countries you're talking about, but for example my country, Finland, isn't one of them and I haven't heard that any American soldiers have ever died for Finland...

So don't lecture me about America saving our ass.

And the war in Iraq, how did that save our ass?

ed316

10-24-2005, 04:20 PM

Wodan

10-24-2005, 04:37 PM

The NAZIS!!!

Yeah the USA saved Finlands arse against the Nazis,

what a great way to show us your history knowledge LOL

Lazarou

10-24-2005, 04:38 PM

The NAZIS!!!

Huh? The US saved us from the Nazis? Never heard that one before...

:)

ed316

10-24-2005, 04:39 PM

You asked if

ed316

10-24-2005, 04:43 PM

I was wrong Finland were Nazi sympathizers allowing them willing to come through Finland.

Lazarou

10-24-2005, 05:11 PM

I was wrong Finland were Nazi sympathizers allowing them willing to come through Finland.

Eh... during the Continuation War in 1941-1944 (after the Winter war, which we had to fight with sticks and stones) we received weapons, supplies and some troops from Germany in order to keep the Evil Empire out of our land. Anything wrong with that? After the war with the USSR we fought against the Germans in Lapland. Before they left, they burned practically every building there to the ground.

Way off-topic...

Malc

10-24-2005, 05:20 PM

A German Chemical Weapons team was there before the war, also the French Aircraft Carrier "Charles De Gualle" was also in theater during the buildup and I beleif during the actual war even know it didn't take part in any millitary action.

ed316

10-24-2005, 05:24 PM

Which european countries got the big bucks? the only big bucks were offered to the Turks, and they turn them down

money won't be offered outright but incentives like money for bases, preferntial treatment of arm sales, equipment "donations", favorable trade status.

Robroy

10-25-2005, 04:36 AM

Save "us" from what ?

WMDs ? The Iraqi army ?

Communism! Saved Germany from total anihilation after WWII! Yiou know the surprise that Russians and French had for you!

Robroy

10-25-2005, 04:43 AM

Which european countries got the big bucks? the only big bucks were offered to the Turks, and they turn them down

Marshall Plain!

Robroy

10-25-2005, 04:46 AM

I don't know which European countries you're talking about, but for example my country, Finland, isn't one of them and I haven't heard that any American soldiers have ever died for Finland...

So don't lecture me about America saving our ass.

And the war in Iraq, how did that save our ass?

Finland after WWII could turn back under Russian rule! I am great ammirer of Finland, and in WWII they were not nazis, the fought for freedom, and their efforts together with Polish ones, I consider as most noble effiorts of mankind!
But USA insisted for a free Finland!

roland

10-25-2005, 06:37 AM

As forever, Europe is waitng that the blood og American guys save their ass, and they pay nothing! European realpolitik....

Last time I heard we were ungratefull that was when we had a dispute about agriculture trade. As if we are going to pay a blood debt with carrots and potatoes LOL.

.. sorry .. in fact the last time we were treated ungratefull that was during a dispute about Airbus-Boeing trade.
... no, the real last time, that was when TOTAL signed a oil contract with Venezuela.
That's boring.
And stupid: America isn't in danger, the casualties are peanuts, they can still do the draft in case they were unable to crush this little insurgency.
And as far as France is concerned, we are so insignifiant and cowards that we would be an embarassement. So better not count on us. As long as you finish the job ..