I suppose it was just a matter of time - U.S. military beginning review of Syria options - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;34613488]That is also accurate. The truth was that we just didn't care enough. It was Africa and after Somalia we were pretty much done with the entire continent. That said, us getting involved would have been problematic anyhow, for the reasons I was pointing out in the previous post. So we didn't get involved because we were indifferent, but had we gotten involved, it doesn't mean things would have turned out any better.[/QUOTE] It's just sad that 800,000-1 million, or more were allowed to be slaughtered because nobody cared...but I guess it wasn't our time to step in.

[QUOTE=faze;34613596]It's just sad that 800,000-1 million, or more were allowed to be slaughtered because nobody cared...but I guess it wasn't our time to step in.[/QUOTE] France should have really stepped up on that one.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34613616]France should have really stepped up on that one.[/QUOTE] Not a lot they could have done. They only recently gained amphibious assault ships (2005) and the Charles de Gaulle carrier launched just a short time after the incident. No boats, no military. =/ EDIT: Actually I take that back. They had these: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouragan_class_landing_platform_dock[/url] But only two, and they aren't really assault carriers. And [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemenceau_class_aircraft_carrier[/url] But those were elsewhere, best I can tell.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34613616]France should have really stepped up on that one.[/QUOTE] Wasn't Belgium a big part of that too? Italy was I think maybe? [editline]8th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;34613676]Not a lot they could have done. They only recently gained amphibious assault ships and the Charles de Gaulle carrier launched just a short time after the incident. No boats, no military. =/[/QUOTE] Yeah in recent history France hasn't been one for having military advantage.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34613509]I never said they didn't do anything. That would be incredibly crass with regards to all those guys who got killed or traumatized helping us. But it's an incredibly american thing to overstate america's involvement in WW1. It's funny how many people over here don't even know you fought at all.[/QUOTE] In WW1 the US is a big reason they won, you do not know they fought because you do not want to learn. England and France simply wanted to drop US soldiers in trenches to help keep it moving but the US instead used fast attacks. How outdated.

[QUOTE=faze;34613677]Wasn't Belgium a big part of that too? Italy was I think maybe? [editline]8th February 2012[/editline] Yeah in recent history France hasn't been one for having military advantage.[/QUOTE] I dunno. Inside Europe, the French are the only ones who actually have a proper military. Note that the French actually had a good navy for the time. They even had aircraft carriers, but I believe that this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars[/url] Was eating their resources and proving to be potentially more problematic.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34613739]I dunno. Inside Europe, the French are the only ones who actually have a proper military. Note that the French actually had a good navy for the time. They even had aircraft carriers, but I believe that this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars[/url] Was eating their resources and proving to be potentially more problematic.[/QUOTE] I thought England and Germany had a better military force than France?

[QUOTE=faze;34613771]I thought England and Germany had a better military force than France?[/QUOTE] The Brits try so very hard, but they never quite seem to have all of the pieces. Good infantry and tanks, but pretty much everything else is mired by problems (Yay a carrier!....wait we need PLANES for this? WAT.) and outdated design (Clearly there is nothing wrong with autocannon that has a six round magazine. Clearly.). To their credit, they manage to produce a remarkable amount of hardware domestically. But while that aids them economically, they would be better off working closely with the United States or another European partner to produce armored vehicles. The Germans are good, but their ambitions are much smaller than France and the UK. Outside of defense and aiding other nations overseas, they don't have much in the way of capabilities.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34613900]The Brits try so very hard, but they never quite seem to have all of the pieces. Good infantry and tanks, but pretty much everything else is mired by problems (Yay a carrier!....wait we need PLANES for this? WAT.) and outdated design (Clearly there is nothing wrong with autocannon that has a six round magazine. Clearly.). To their credit, they manage to produce a remarkable amount of hardware domestically. But while that aids them economically, they would be better off working closely with the United States or another European partner to produce armored vehicles. The Germans are good, but their ambitions are much smaller than France and the UK. Outside of defense and aiding other nations overseas, they don't have much in the way of capabilities.[/QUOTE] Yeah I made a comment in another thread about England in WW2 and people thought I was crazy for saying something to the effect that they HAD to call on us for help. Germany needs small ambitions after 1910-1939 in their history.

[QUOTE=faze;34613677]Wasn't Belgium a big part of that too? Italy was I think maybe?[/QUOTE] The Belgians were the best force Dallaire had under his command, until they withdrew from the mission. The French were involved in a second UN mandate in the area, running concurrently to UNAMIR, although some argue that all they really accomplished was the prolongment of the genocide.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]As some one outside of america. This is not true, you only have a minor footnote in Great War European history books. If anything, your involvement actually hurt your reputation. The United States refused to learn from the hard learned mistakes made by the allies in the prior years and needless amounts of your soldiers died for very little gain by using outmoded training and tactics.[/QUOTE] You mean the same outmoded training and tactics that let your asses get kicked at the beginning of the war? [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;34617455]Yeah I made a comment in another thread about England in WW2 and people thought I was crazy for saying something to the effect that they HAD to call on us for help. Germany needs small ambitions after 1910-1939 in their history.[/QUOTE] No, they need small ambitions because the rest of world will shit their diapers.

[QUOTE=Swilly;34617911]You mean the same outmoded training and tactics that let your asses get kicked at the beginning of the war?[/QUOTE] Those exactly.