GOP FRAUD

Might I suggest that someone who says that an opponent's posts are "poorly reasoned" should do better than say things like:

quote:

---

The first major offensive of World War 2 by US troops in the European theater was against Vichy France, although it was Japan that attacked at Pearl Harbor.

---

Since Japan was not in the European theater then no actions taken there COULD be directed against Japan.And that's if there even WAS a major U.S. offensive against Vichy France which seems to be doubtful. I can't find any record of it.

Thanks for catching that, Paul.

Unfortunately for you, and schrafinator, your response was far from as strong as you fancy it.At the very least, you've not done your homework. "Operation Torch" was the name of the operation you failed to find references to - or , possibly, didn't even bother trying.It's probable that your grasp of miltary history, strategy, and tactics is slim to non-existent, rendering any opinions you might venture on such matters difficult to regard as serious.

Internet-Esq.com is for sale | HugeDomainsThis site discusses Operation Torch as an attack on North Africa in Sept of 1942.The battle of Midway (against Japan) was spring summer area of 1942 was it not?It seems I misunderstood your original statement: The way you were talking about it was as if the US had it's first major offensive of the war against Germany and not Japan. However, that is not correct so you really meant "in the European theater". But then it makes no sense in the context of discussing the fact that Japan attacked first.This was into Northern Africa. Myself, I thought of "Vichy France" as being that part of France that was left under nominal French control by the Nazis. In fact, I think it is used that way more than any other.It's not clear what this now has to do with anything at all.It might be an idea for you to watch your tone since it doesn't look like you're the greatest expert on military history either.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-05-2004 08:06 PM

You mean, Operation Torch, which was the Allied invasion of French North Africa in November of 1942?We entered the war in December of 1941. You're trying to tell us we waited almost a year before engaging in any kind of military action whatsoever? Of course, you'd be wrong. The first American military action (besides the defensive actions at Pearl Harbor) was the Battle of the Java Sea, where four American destroyers attacked a Japanese invasion convoy bound for Borneo in the Makassar Strait. This was on the 23rd of Januray, 1942. Certainly the first major military strike against Axis assets was the Doolittle Raid of American bombers on Nagoya, Tokyo and Yokohama.So, in fact, you were quite wrong. The first American response to Pearl Harbor was to attack Japanese forces in the Pacific Theatre.AbE: Here's the Wiki timeline of WWII: List of timelines of World War II - WikipediaVery helpful.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-05-2004 08:09 PM

By no means. I stated the first major US offensive in the European Theater (more precisely, the Mediterrranean Theater, you'd get credit for pointing that out) was Torch, directed agaisnt Vichy France, a power with which we were not formally at war, but which was cooperating with the Axis.The point I was trying to make is that this was a diversionary tactic, instead of attempting a direct attack on occupied France or Germany first. Correct, although this was the Battle of Balikpapan. The Battle of the Java Sea was the defeat of a joint US/British/Dutch naval force by a Japanese naval force on February 2, 1942.

At very least, Algeria was considered part of Metropolitan France at this time, and the first forces to fire on US forces in Torch were French forces under command of commanders loyal to the Vichy regime.

Point taken, although in this case I must protest the use of the epithet "fool" by Rrhain in his last post.

No, the point you were trying to make was very clear:

quote:

---

As to 9/11 and Iraq. I regard the idea that they may not be directly connectd as largely irrelevant. The first major offensive of World War 2 by US troops in the European theater was against Vichy France, although it was Japan that attacked at Pearl Harbor.

---

You tried to make the point, oddly worded with an irrelevant caveat, that even though it was Japan that attacked us, it was European Axis forces that we first struck against. (Of course, your bizzare "in the European theatre" caveat, in addition to being a non-sequiter, is also tautological - you're basically asking "if Japan attacked us, why was our first action in the European theatre in the European theatre?")But that's simply not true. Japan attacked us first; our immediate reprisals were against Japan. In Europe, the Axis powers declared war against us; our first reprisals were against Axis forces in North Africa.So, in fact, this has absolutely no relation to the Iraq war, because that's an example of reprisal against a totally uninvolved country. You tried to give examples of that from WWII, and now you're moving the goal posts, but you were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-05-2004 08:39 PM

Not quite; read up on Torch in more detail. German and Italian forces did enter the theater soon after the initial landings (with French cooperation) but the first shooting was between US and Vichy French forces.And that's the point I'm trying to make (apparently, not clearly enough). The intent of Torch was to draw German forces into North Africa from other theaters (including the Eastern Front) where they could be engaged at a strategic advantage by Allied forces.This message has been edited by paisano, 11-05-2004 08:44 PM

Yeah, I caught that error and amended my post; I presume it reads correctly now and that you would have no objection to the characteriation of Vichy forces as "Axis".

No objection at all. We're digressing from Iraq. The point I am trying to make is that Iraq could be seen as an operation intended to draw terrorist groups into engagements with US forces. I know that many insist there is absolutely no connection between the war on terror and Iraq. I disagree, and the scenario I present is one reason why I hold the views I do.

But it's not like we're drawing terrorists from other operations into Iraq. Quite the opposite. We're stimulating terror recruitment with these actions, giving them the manpower and resources to battle us in Iraq without diverting resources from anywhere else in the world.On the other hand, we've got 200,000 of our troops pinned down in Iraq. Al-Queda can do what it pleases, because we're stuck in Iraq fighting foes of our own making. We haven't drawn terrorists from anywhere.

Well, again, I simply don't agree. We are taking on Zarqawi, Al-Sadr, and assorted others. Zarqawi is at least loosely affiliated with AQ. I don't think one can play defense with these terrorists, either. Nor do we want a domestic police state (and we aren't getting one, the somewhat overheated rhertoric to the contrary notwithstanding).

With the facts? I realize that.