Empire of the Iguanadons

So what do you get when you cross military hardware with Hollywood style illusion affects? Apparently you get the latest toy the British military has in testing. No, it doesn't use cloaking devices or bend light or shift into an alternate dimension like the cool stuff in a sci-fi show. It uses some simple video techniques to project a shot of the landscape behind the tank onto the opposite side, thus obscuring it from view.

Imagine being able to deploy weapons like this into the battlefield and roll right up on that forest hideout of the dictator you've been sent to depose. A couple of these babies and nobody would ever know what hit them. The fact that we've been allowed to find this out suggests that such weapons are probably already out there somewhere, unseen. Though they're telling us that deployment isn't expected until at least 2012.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

It really is amazing how far we get off-topic here sometimes, but even more so, how easily we get off-topic here sometimes.. *lol*

So France is having issues with their rediculous exportation wine pricing.. what a shocker.. *snicker*

And, are y'all sure it's not that the guy who assassinated Kenedy is the one hiding Jimmy Hoffa's body? *chuckle*

So, Samson's a french hater now.. I hate french fries, does that make me just as bad? ...on the other hand, I'm one of very few people I know who actually does like escargots.. bagettes are really good too, fwiw. :p

So, anyway, now that we've got all that out of our systems, shall we return to the cloaked tank or move on to the exploding comet that could be seen by the naked eye earlier tonight?

Or, maybe y'all would like to debate the merits of this article instead, personally I find it just incredible, literally, that after all they article describes the judge showed the leniency he did: Teenagers who filmed sex attack escape detention

Wounded? I think you meant: "bored silly by yet another xenophobic France-hater"...


To be honest, I'm more fond of the garlic butter sauce than the escargots themselves... Not too fond of the texture of the escargots...

And yes, baguettes are wonderful. Too bad they're usually made from sour-dough in this country. :-(

That article is pretty amazing:
"He described their behaviour as cowardly and brutal and said their offences were a serious breach of the criminal law."
Serious breach, but no sentences? I mean, geez, maybe they don't deserve life, but a few months at least wouldn't have hurt to rub in that what they did was pretty despicable...

Uh... what? There you are again, sticking yet more words in my mouth.



Ok, so technically hating France would qualify, but you're deliberately trying to twist things yet again. I despise treasonous allies, foreign or otherwise. Since a phobia is further defined as an irrational state of mind, I think you're just being an asshole. My hatred is entirely justified by their actions, which history backs me up on whether you like it or not.

As much as the comet thing is interesting, it's only going to further derail things. As sick as the kids in Australia are, it's also only going to further derail things.

For the record, I wouldn't trust the French with cloakable tanks after what they've done to us.

I also find it entirely appropriate that this comment is officially the 800th total comment on the blog. Just figured I'd toss that in. Strangely enough, almost 10% of them are right here.

I love you too, Samson.

Whatever. You've got an amazing gift for being stubborn and pigheaded in the face of historical truth.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe such a thing, have at it...

It doesn't matter to me personally either way. You're being dishonest with yourself if you can sit there and argue the position you've taken in clear defiance of what history has proven to be fact. Your kind of willful ignorance is extremely dangerous. I hope you never get elected to any sort of national office.

Is your appropriation of truthkeeper regarding history another one of your little jokes like your intuition being 100% correct, or are you serious this time? (Let me guess: your knowledge of history is 100% correct 100% of the time on 100% of issues... tee hee)

As for public office, well, for what it's worth, I sincerely hope the same about you. So I guess that makes us even...

My stating it has no affect on the truth of it. It merely is a fact. Or are you now seriously going to suggest that just because I say it, it can't possibly ever be true? You should try going to look it up sometime. I hear they have this cool new web encyclopedia, cleverly named Wikipedia, where you can find out all kinds of interesting historical facts. Or maybe this quaint thing they call a library. An actual physical building where they have books and other things made of paper where people who died hundreds of years ago wrote stuff down so we'd know how cool they were. Or perhaps you could just ask one of your liberal professors.... no wait, don't do that. From the sound of things you already did and have been duped into believing he's right and history is wrong.

In simple terms: No joke. Go look it up. Or don't, and continue to look like an ass.

Ohhh, so we ARE back to what you having to say be true 100% of the time... well, at least that's cleared up now. You know, I'm not so sure you weren't being entirely humorous in your "experiment"... you really do seem to think you have all the answers to all this stuff.

No, I don't have all the answers about "all this stuff". But I know when I'm being fed a steaming pile of bullshit, and you've got an awfully big shovel full of it right now if you think I'm supposed to just declare I was wrong, France is sweet and wonderful and full of friendship and flowery happiness, and that history is filled with lies about them because some right wing crazy guy on a blog is a paranoid xenophobic France hater.

You scare me. Pure and simple. This willful ignorance of easily verified historical fact is exactly what got Europe into trouble in the 1930s to begin with. They stuck their fingers in their ears, covered their eyes, and chanted to themselves "Hitler isn't evil" over and over and over again until they deluded themselves into thinking it was really true. Then reality bit them in the ass and they nearly lost everything for it. That's NOT the kind of mistake we need to be repeating in our lifetimes. Yet here you are doing exactly the same thing when it's pointed out, evidence by the boat load. Sticking your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and chanting to yourself "Samson is a xenophobic France hater" over and over and over again until you delude yourself into believing it. Well, when your precious traitorous France gets bit on the ass by reality I'll be there to say I told you so.

I suppose next you'll insist we nuked Japan killing thousands of people just for Truman's own amusement.

Whatever you say, Samson... :-)

No. Whatever history tells us, David. I'm merely passing the information along. I can't help it if you're too busy slinging shit on the walls to care.

Since we're all suddenly talking history, I must appear from the woodwork, or the blog equivilent thereof...

I thought we all knew that squirrel aliens were responsible for both Kennedy and Hoffa. Recent evidence suggests that they were also responsible for communist victory in Indochina AND French foreign policy since World War I.

Now let's discuss a few things.

- On the subject of who sucks for appeasing Germany pre-WWII: Clearly, the big winners of the suck prize here are Britain and France together, in a sequence of events that spans the entirity of the 1930s. They bear the chief responsibility for letting Germany re-arm, for Czechoslovakia, and for Poland, and doubtless I'm forgetting a couple things. One might also be tempted to include Stalin in that, if Stalin was actually playing by the same rules as everyone, and if he hadn't intended to stab Hitler anyway.

The prewar US, though. That's a funny thing. On the one hand, a generally isolationist citizenry, and one that was, if not entirely pro-Nazi, certainly not overly opposed, and let us remember how large the German immigrant population and descendants (of which I am, for the record) is in this country. On the other hand, a government, or at least an executive branch, very much opposed but with extreme limits on doing anything. But let us not forget Lend-Lease (9 months prior to Pearl Harbor), the Destroyers For Bases Agreement (September 1940, 14 months before Pearl Harbor), and low-level US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic as early as 1940. Let us also remember the post-Pearl Harbor Allied agreement, the name of which escapes me just now, in which it was decided that the goal was to defeat Hitler first, THEN deal with Japan. And indeed, Europe ended up being the main focus of the war, with most of the Pacific theaters and subtheaters being sideshows. The point being that it's not at all simple to just assign blame to the US for WWII, nor, as Samson points out, should we.

- Vietnam's an even more tricky subject, but allow me to note that yes, while the French did lose, what do you expect? They got their whole country leveled in WWII, and they're fighting all the way across the world against a bunch of folks who would rather not be colonized, thanks. Plus they had large swathes of Africa to deal with as well. If we can ever forgive the French for getting their asses kicked somewhere, it's probably here.

It's also worth noting that pretty much US aid to the French, and then the US assumption of France's role, was the idea of the US, which essentially makes it our own damn fault. As best I can tell, the French were just as happy getting out and we have ourselves to blame that we didn't too.

That aside, our loss there was more political than military. Indeed, after Tet '68 and the destruction of the Vietcong, South Vietnam was cleaned up fairly well, and I'm given to understand that by 1971 or 1972, things were looking exceedingly good militarily, despite the fact that our policy regarding the North was lunacy. What really screwed us over was both failure to insure a stable (and non-corrupt) government in SVN, and a failure to adequately prepare and supply its military for when we left.

- And not to belabor French foreign policy dickery too much, but let's be clear that as far back as Versailles when Clemenceau fought very hard to screw the Central Powers from WWI, France has most definitely been in it for France. Hell, you can even argue that their involvement in our Revolution, despite the fact that it saved our rebel asses, wasn't exactly a selfless move on their part, especially considering our later hostile relations a decade later. Back in this century, we haven't yet mentioned the withdrawal of France from the NATO command structure in 1966, thus giving them all of the benefits without any of the, you know, team playing. As an American, I find it particularly annoying that every time France unilaterally intervenes in some random African nation, either nobody cares or its a wonderful thing, but it's Yankee go home every time the US does anything remotely similar.

- OTOH, to be fair to the French, they did do reasonably well, considering, in WWII. They also sent troops to the UN effort in Korea, who did well (and under US command, amusingly). They've been in a bunch of UN efforts, including the Balkans, the first Gulf War, and most notably for us these days, Afghanistan.

Just, well, that second time around in Iraq. Yeah.

The counter was at 81 when I started writing. Have we broke 90 yet?

It's refreshing to see some intelligent and knowledgeable commentary on history; thanks Dwip.

"France has most definitely been in it for France."
Most definitely. But in fairness, such is the case for every country. For example, the US got involved in WWII because it was in their interests after they realized sitting in their corner wasn't going to work anymore. Heck, the same can be said about WWI. Countries generally don't go to war just to be nice to other people...

"Hell, you can even argue that their involvement in our Revolution, despite the fact that it saved our rebel asses, wasn't exactly a selfless move on their part, especially considering our later hostile relations a decade later."
They were involved in a huge rivalry with Britain, so it only made sense to annoy Britain wherever possible. But yeah, it definitely wasn't selfless, especially considering that it was the monarchy that started it, not the Lumieres of the later Revolution.

"As an American, I find it particularly annoying that every time France unilaterally intervenes in some random African nation, either nobody cares or its a wonderful thing, but it's Yankee go home every time the US does anything remotely similar. "
Clearly you haven't been following the controversy about France's role in Rwanda. But, well, maybe it also has to do with how a country approaches things and how they market their activities.

"OTOH, to be fair to the French, they did do reasonably well, considering, in WWII."
A lot of French people are furious with what the government did, for what that's worth. The Vichy government didn't exactly get off easy when the war ended; some of them were even executed by the post-war French government as traitors.

Oh, I forgot something:

"On the subject of who sucks for appeasing Germany pre-WWII: Clearly, the big winners of the suck prize here are Britain and France together,"
Entirely correct. They had the responsibility not only as the counterbalances but as the people responsible for the disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles. (Churchill covered that in his Memoirs.) It's just dumb to say that it was France's fault alone. And yes, I agree that Russia's role is a little peculiar.

... um.... While I readily concede Dwip's knowledge of history is superior to mine, I can't help but wonder. He more or less said what I said, in greater detail and with more information to add to it. Yet, he's refreshing and I'm a xenophobe? I don't get it, really.

*Lord, I know I'm going to regret this...*

Um, aside from all the things I know that I have to be thankful to France for providing us (escargots, wine, bagettes, pennicillan (and a dozen reasons to need it), legionarres disease, etc).. aside from having spelled out a little more the specifics of how France sucked over the last 75 years or so.. what was so much less hostile about Dwip's comment as opposed to Samson's earlier remarks? Just having a fresh voice state these things? Or was it that he also included that closing "OTOH" bit to soften the blow a bit?

And, as late as this may be at this point, what's any of this have to do with cloaked tanks??

Thanks.

Various replies:

- I think you can probably argue that as far as selflessness goes, the US has had its share of it, especially in terms of WWII and the winning thereof. Lend-Lease is the shining example there. Post-war you can point to the Marshall Plan, and to NATO. We surely derived benefits from them, yes, but there was a lot of goodness of our hearts there.

Too, in recent years, we didn't need to leap into, say, Somalia, or the Balkans. But we did. We've become sort of the poster boy for that sort of thing. Whereas France, not so much. Which is what it is.

- You are, of course, correct on the Revolution. And of course by the time of the Quasi-War in 1798, France had had how many regime changes? Strange time, the French Revolution.

- I indeed, have not been following the news lately, though the incidents I'm thinking about stretch back into the late 1990s. A couple of which IIRC happened during the initial Iraq controversy, though I can't at 2:30am remember the dates or details.

- I had been thinking, in regards to the French doing ok in WWII, to the Free French and the Resistance, though to be sure, there's an awful lot of interestingness to be found when you throw in Vichy. Darlan, that means you.

And by way of clarification to several things now:

- My intention was to both clarify and very mildly take several people on both sides to task for percieved inacuracies. Considering the rest of this thread, I've tried to be relatively inoffensive about it.

- That having been said, let me note that I am surely no great supporter of the French government, and I'm quite guilty of all kinds of vitriol against it. I do rather like France, though, and it's a regret of mine that I only had one day a few years back to spend in Paris, which was an altogether fantastic city, though the Parisians weren't especially pleased to see me.

I just wish that they were as a country more often for us than against us, as the saying goes.

To the original post, it came to my attention that James Bond, at the least, already has better cloaking tech than we've seen here, as features in Die Another Day. Also, I wonder if we teach our special operations guys stealth surfboarding.

Conner:

It's quite simple, really:

- unlike Samson, he did not suggest that Hitler's rise was all France's fault. Samson made such a fuss about France, but never bothered to mention the UK and Chamberlain, even in passing.

- unlike Samson, Dwip provided facts and analysis about his claims, instead of making grossly generalizing statements with big words.

- unlike Samson, he acknowledged that maybe the US's involvement (and subsequent failure) in Vietnam was the US's idea, not France's.

- unlike Samson, he acknowledged that the US's pre-WWII-involvement sentiment was not exactly universally anti-Hitler.

All that aside, Dwip's entire tone is much more conducive to actual, intelligent discussion. At least he brings up concrete issues and points of fact, instead of slinging around big words and insults.

That, and in case you didn't notice, I did tell Samson that I wasn't terribly interested in discussing his hatred of France with him, given his attitude to me about it, which is why my posts to him on the subject have all been one-line quips. Now, if Samson were to produce a post like Dwip's, I'd be more than happy to talk about it...



Dwip:


"I think you can probably argue that as far as selflessness goes, the US has had its share of it, especially in terms of WWII and the winning thereof. Lend-Lease is the shining example there. Post-war you can point to the Marshall Plan, and to NATO. We surely derived benefits from them, yes, but there was a lot of goodness of our hearts there."

Lend-Lease (and its predecessor Cash-and-Carry) were interesting in that it is what the government could do without pissing off a population not interested in going to war. I have a great deal of respect for the government that did what it could to participate. But they couldn't do much more than that, because the population really had no interest in helping Europe. :-(

And yeah, the Marshall Plan was definitely helpful. I was talking about going to war, though. Also, although it is total speculation, it is unclear that the plan would have been approved if the gain hadn't been there. Of course, it still was a very good thing in the end of the day.

"Too, in recent years, we didn't need to leap into, say, Somalia, or the Balkans. But we did. We've become sort of the poster boy for that sort of thing. Whereas France, not so much. Which is what it is."

Well, whether or not it is justified, the perception in much of the rest of the world is not that the US is a knight in shining armor, but a self-appointed policeman who kind of does what he wants. An unfortunate situation, in any case, but clearly something went wrong somewhere for somebody on how the actions were perceived.

France did get involved in a few places, just not as many and not with as big a profile as the US. France, esp. during De Gaulle's time, did quite a lot of work for their former sub-Saharan colonies. Didn't necessarily involve sending in the troops (well, not always). Their interventions were of a different kind, is all. But yes, the US had more large-scale interventions than France did, there's no questioning that.


"- You are, of course, correct on the Revolution. And of course by the time of the Quasi-War in 1798, France had had how many regime changes? Strange time, the French Revolution."

Heh, yes. It's definitely one of the most complex periods I've ever studied. It's particularly fascinating to me that they went so quickly from the grand ideals of the Lumieres to the horrible, horrible times of the Terror, and then ending up in the Empire. But hey, if I had to choose between the Terror and the Empire, I think I'd go for the latter, too...


"- I indeed, have not been following the news lately, though the incidents I'm thinking about stretch back into the late 1990s. A couple of which IIRC happened during the initial Iraq controversy, though I can't at 2:30am remember the dates or details."

The main thing with Rwanda is that the French are being accused of sitting by idly watching the massacre, sometimes implicitly helping it. The French are denying it, the Rwandan president is insisting. It's pretty dirty. I suspect that, as with many things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...


"- I had been thinking, in regards to the French doing ok in WWII, to the Free French and the Resistance, though to be sure, there's an awful lot of interestingness to be found when you throw in Vichy. Darlan, that means you."

Heh, yes, Darlan. I was thinking of Laval, myself, as one of the most prominent figures who found himself executed.

The whole thing is really sad, IMO. You had the country torn between the Vichy people on the one hand and the Resistance on the other. Too bad the former had more power and resources. :-(


"That having been said, let me note that I am surely no great supporter of the French government, and I'm quite guilty of all kinds of vitriol against it."

There's nothing wrong with not liking the French government; they certainly have their fair share of problems. (Personally, I constantly rail against several problems I find.) What I object to is categorical rejection based on narrow perceptions and partial applications of principles; I object to somebody pointing fingers at the French and pretending that they are somehow so much more evil than everybody else.


"though the Parisians weren't especially pleased to see me. "

If it makes you feel better, Parisians aren't typically pleased to see much of anybody, even each other. :-P


"I just wish that they were as a country more often for us than against us, as the saying goes. "

Well, after 9/11, Chirac came out and said: "Today, we are all American." Now, if you know anything at all about the French, you know just what it means to say something like that. (I mean, he could have said how tragic it was and left it at that.) The French were not against the war in Afghanistan. It is excruciatingly unfortunate that so much good will was wasted on all sides during the badly managed (on all sides) lead-up to the Iraq II.

"Also, I wonder if we teach our special operations guys stealth surfboarding."
Stealth surfboarding... now that sounds like quite the sport. :-)

Way to ignore the fact that I said the same thing as Dwip did David. Or are you just afraid to admit that I was right, even though I didn't spend the time to go into the level of detail Dwip did? Trying to spin it like all I did was spew forth random stupidity just makes you look more like the idiot I already suspect you of being.



I didn't bother to mention Chamberlain and the UK because we were discussing France, not the UK. You seem to be making an argument that France shouldn't be held accountable for it just because they weren't the only ones at fault.



I never said it was universally anti-Hitler. I said we simply wanted to stay out of it. That's entirely true - the general public wanted nothing to do with getting involved in another war in Europe.



France was responsible for us needing to go, so yes, I hold them accountable for it. Shocking, I know, to expect someone to accept responsibility for their actions. Our subsequent failure wasn't due to any military reason. It was entirely due to the left wing elements in our own government interfering in how the war was fought, but since you don't believe that, there was no sense in my mentioning it.... oops... I mentioned it.



Uh... David. Pot, kettle, black? Calling me a racist xenophobe is conducive to intelligent discussion? My statements were all factually accurate, and you chose to bypass those in order to attack me personally. Yet when I respond in kind it's my fault it happened? You're a troll.

Um...

I know this has already been said.. but.. The only thing Dwip said differently than Samson was to give factual proof that France fucking sucks.

So.. I need to ask.. ...Wtf?

kayle its eazy:

samson = facist gasbag
david = comunist gasbag
drip = drivling idjit
conner = fuckfaced punk

"Calling me a racist xenophobe is conducive to intelligent discussion? "
Well, Samson, you did notice that I told you I had zero interest in discussing the issue with you given your attitude, past and current, right? So why are you so surprised that I didn't discuss the issue with you? (Incidentally, the last time somebody was perceived to be asking about something the other said they weren't interested in talking about, the second somebody came out blasting the first... Hmm... I wonder who that was...)