THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

"At last I am in China where I hope to be of some service to a people who are struggling to attain national unity and new life"
-May 31, 1937; Claire L. Chennault diary entry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(the chinese certainly attained national unity - perhaps not the way chennault had envisioned it . hbg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Flying Tigers

American Volunteer Group - Chinese Air Force

A BRIEF HISTORY WITH RECOLLECTIONS AND COMMENTS BY GENERAL CLAIRE LEE CHENNAULT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In April, 1937, Claire L. Chennault, then a captain in the United States Army Air Corps, retired from active duty and accepted an offer form Madame Chiang Kai-shek for a three month mission to China to make a confidential survey of the Chinese Air Force. At that time China and Japan were on the verge of war and the fledgling Chinese Air Force was beset by internal problems and torn between American and Italian influence. Madame Chiang Kai-shek took over leadership of the Aeronautical Commission in order to reorganize the Chinese Air Force. This was the beginning of Chennault's stay in China which did not terminate until 1945 at the close of World War II. Chennault's combat and other experiences between 1937 and 1941 in China are another story, but it was these experiences together with the knowledge he attained of combat tactics and the operations of Japanese Air Force over China that laid the ground work for the organization of the American Volunteer Group in 1941.

The official status of Claire L. Chennault in China prior to 1942 was always a subject of speculation. Chennault himself states that he was a civilian advisor to the Secretary of the Commission for Aeronautical Affairs, first Madame Chiang and later T.V. Soong. Until he returned to active duty with the United States Army in the spring of 1942, four months after Pearl Harbor, he had no legal status as a belligerent and held no rank other than retired captain in the United States Army. Even while he commanded the American Volunteer Group in combat, his official job was adviser to the Central Bank of China, and his passport listed his occupation as a farmer.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371137
After the Russo-Japanese War (1895), Japan gained control of the Russian-built South Manchurian Railway, and its army established a presence in the region; expansion there was seen as necessary for Japan's status as an emerging world power. In 1931 the Japanese army created an excuse to attack Chinese troops there, and in 1932 Manchukuo was proclaimed an "independent" state. The last Qing emperor was brought out of retirement and made Manchukuo's ruler, but the state was actually rigidly controlled by the Japanese, who used it as their base for expansion into Asia. An underground guerrilla movement composed of Manchurian soldiers, armed civilians, and Chinese communists opposed the occupying Japanese, many of whom had come over to settle in the new colony. After Japan's defeat in 1945 the settlers were repatriated.

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378760
The second conflict (1937-45) denotes the period of China's resistance to Japan's aggression in Chinese territory after Japan had established itself in Manchuria; it ended with Japan's defeat in World War II.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034703/Flying-Tigers
Flying Tigers
American volunteer pilots recruited by Claire L. Chennault, a retired U.S. Army captain, to fight the Japanese in Burma (Myanmar) and China during 1941-42, at a time when Japan's control over China's ports and transportation system had almost cut off China's Nationalist government from the outside world. Facing chronic shortages of fuel, parts, and pilots, this small company of air fighters nevertheless scored victory after victory over the far larger and better-equipped Japanese air force. They flew supplies, provided air cover for the Burma Road, succeeded in protecting the Chinese capital of Chungking, and fought the Japanese over southwestern and other parts of China. Surprise, mobility, precision flying, and unorthodox tactics enabled the Tigers to outwit the Japanese and inflict considerable damage on their air and ground forces. On July 4, 1942, members of the unit who wished were absorbed into the U.S. 10th Air Force and became the nucleus of the China Air Task Force (reorganized in March 1943 as the 14th Air Force), still under the command of Chennault, who was later promoted to brigadier general (1942) and major general (1943).

WORLD WAR II STARTED IN 1931 WHEN THE JAPANESE INVADED CHINA.

The USA was merely a tardy participant in WWII.

Americans voluntarily fought in China prior to 12/7/41 to help the Chinese against the Japanese. One group was called the Flying Tigers. The noses of their P40 fighter planes were painted to look like the mouths of tigers. Others flew DC-3 cargo planes across the Himalayan mountains to help supply the Chinese with food and ordnance.

Speaking of staunch allies:

US warplanes kill British troops- "a criminal act" says court

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1524626.ece

March 16, 2007

Friendly fire was 'entirely avoidable', corner rules

The widow of a British soldier killed in a "friendly fire" incident in Iraq four years ago said today that she would not be pushing for charges against the American pilot who fired at his convoy even though a coroner ruled that it had been a "criminal" act.

Lance Corporal Matty Hull, 25, was killed in southern Iraq on March 28, 2003, when his armoured convoy came under attack from two US A-10 Tank-buster warplanes. Four other British soldiers were wounded in the incident.

Delivering his verdict on the death, Andrew Walker, the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Oxfordshire, said today: "This was an entirely avoidable tragedy."
...

so if WW II started in 1931 , has it ended yet ?
i recall there were some old germans that i worked with in the early 1950's that were still fighting WW I !
hbg

hamburger wrote:

so if WW II started in 1931 , has it ended yet ?
i recall there were some old germans that i worked with in the early 1950's that were still fighting WW I !
hbg

The Japanese attacked China in 1931 and WWII began.
The Japanese attacked China again in 1937.
The Japanese attacked the USA in 1941.
The Japanese unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

The Germans seized part of Czechoslovakia (without firing a shot) in 1938.
The Germans attacked Poland in 1939.
The Germans declared war on the USA in 1941.
The Germans unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

When the Germans and Japanese had both unconditionally surrendered in 1945 (the Italians had surrendered previously), WWII finally ended ... after 14 years (1931-1945).

...
You are beating a dead horse.
It is quite clear that to many people on here,WW2 didnt start till 12/07/41.
Anything that happened before then,like the German invasion of Poland,or France,or Russia,or the "Battle of Britian,or the Japanese invasion of China,etc.
None of that counts because the US wasnt involved.

Apparently,there are many on here that believe that if the US wasnt involved,it didnt happen.

ican711nm wrote:

hamburger wrote:

so if WW II started in 1931 , has it ended yet ?
i recall there were some old germans that i worked with in the early 1950's that were still fighting WW I !
hbg

The Japanese attacked China in 1931 and WWII began.
The Japanese attacked China again in 1937.
The Japanese attacked the USA in 1941.
The Japanese unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

The Germans seized part of Czechoslovakia (without firing a shot) in 1938.
The Germans attacked Poland in 1939.
The Germans declared war on the USA in 1941.
The Germans unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

When the Germans and Japanese had both unconditionally surrendered in 1945 (the Italians had surrendered previously), WWII finally ended ... after 14 years (1931-1945).

You are beating a dead horse.
It is quite clear that to many people on here,WW2 didnt start till 12/07/41.
Anything that happened before then,like the German invasion of Poland,or France,or Russia,or the "Battle of Britian,or the Japanese invasion of China,etc.
None of that counts because the US wasnt involved.

Apparently,there are many on here that believe that if the US wasnt involved,it didnt happen.

As usual MM you are clueless. No one is saying WWII started on 12/7/41. They're saying America's offical entry into the war started on 12/7/41. Since this issue is about AMERICAN soldiers (remember the cartoon?) England, France and Poland are irrelevant.

Quote:

As usual MM you are clueless. No one is saying WWII started on 12/7/41. They're saying America's offical entry into the war started on 12/7/41. Since this issue is about AMERICAN soldiers (remember the cartoon?) England, France and Poland are irrelevant.

The point is that England and Poland ARE with us in Iraq.
So,to say the war in Iraq has lasted longer then WW2 is wrong,because those 2 countries were fighting WW2 for over 2 years BEFORE we got into it.
And,British troops were involved in the Pacific theater during WW2 (and the Asian theater) during our Island hopping campaign against the Germans.

The "cartoon" you posted mentions North Africa,Europe,and the Pacific.
Now,the Brits were fighting in all of those places 2 years BEFORE we got involved in the war,so if you want to be honest about your cartoon,you must include the Brits.

Instead,you are totally discounting their actions in WW2 to say that the US alone did it.
If you want to compare Iraq to WW2,thats fine.

But at least be honest enough to include the Brits and Poland in your comparison.After all,they ARE in Iraq with us now.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

As usual MM you are clueless. No one is saying WWII started on 12/7/41. They're saying America's offical entry into the war started on 12/7/41. Since this issue is about AMERICAN soldiers (remember the cartoon?) England, France and Poland are irrelevant.

The point is that England and Poland ARE with us in Iraq.
So,to say the war in Iraq has lasted longer then WW2 is wrong,because those 2 countries were fighting WW2 for over 2 years BEFORE we got into it.
And,British troops were involved in the Pacific theater during WW2 (and the Asian theater) during our Island hopping campaign against the Germans.

The "cartoon" you posted mentions North Africa,Europe,and the Pacific.
Now,the Brits were fighting in all of those places 2 years BEFORE we got involved in the war,so if you want to be honest about your cartoon,you must include the Brits.

Instead,you are totally discounting their actions in WW2 to say that the US alone did it.
If you want to compare Iraq to WW2,thats fine.

But at least be honest enough to include the Brits and Poland in your comparison.After all,they ARE in Iraq with us now.

First of all MM this is Bush's war, not the Brits or Poland. Second the cartoon was about Bush and the American troops. It did not imply in any way any other troops other than ours. If you want to include other troops that's your diversion.

Noticed what the cartoon says; "these Veterans". Notice the symbol in the background; American Legion, not the British Legion or the Polish Legion; AMERICAN.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC that with two out of the five extra brigades now on the ground in Iraq, there had been fewer sectarian attacks.

He said he would have an idea of the chance of success once all extra troops were deployed in the coming months.

Attacks in Baghdad killed at least four Iraqis on Sunday, while the US announced the deaths of seven troops.

The violence included:


A car bomb at a popular market in the Shia district of Sadr City, which killed three people and wounded another seven

Four US soldiers were killed and one wounded when their vehicle was ambushed by a roadside bomb in western Baghdad on Saturday, the US military said

Also on Saturday, an explosion in the capital's Diyala province killed one US soldier and injured five others and a US marine died while fighting in Anbar province

'Returning families'

The new "surge" policy is aimed at curbing sectarian and insurgent violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Gen Petraeus said: "By early June, we should then have everyone roughly in place - and that will allow us to establish the density in partnership with Iraqi security forces that you need to really get a good grip on the security situation."

He said there were "encouraging signs", although he added that he did not want to get "overly optimistic at all on the basis of several weeks of a reduced sectarian murder rate".

He said the new operation had led hundreds of families to return to "neighbourhoods that had really emptied out".

But Gen Petraeus also pledged to speak candidly if he thought the operation was not working.

He said: "I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.

"In other words, if you can't accomplish your mission, you owe that to your boss - and you owe that, more importantly, to those who are out there serving in the coalition."

War protests

Sectarian violence in Iraq rose sharply after an attack on a Shia shrine in Samarra last year.

The monthly Iraqi death toll hit a record high in October, with more than 3,700 people losing their lives, according to a UN report.

In December US President George W Bush announced the deployment of a total of 21,500 extra troops in Iraq.

In early March Defence Secretary Robert Gates approved a request for an extra 2,200 military police to support the security drive in Baghdad.

The Democrats, who now control Congress, have condemned Mr Bush's policy, and some have suggested legislation requiring US troops to return from Iraq if security goals are not met.

Thousands of anti-war protesters have been marching in the US and elsewhere to mark the fourth anniversary this coming Tuesday of the start of the Iraq conflict.

In Washington, the marchers followed the same route as a demonstration in 1967 against the US involvement in Vietnam.

Sectarian violence is down because most of the Shiite militias have gone to ground during this surge. With Shiites mainly out of action, of course violence is going to be down from when they bombing as much if not more than Sunni insurgents. But Sunni insurgents have not stood down at all and I doubt they will.

xingu wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

As usual MM you are clueless. No one is saying WWII started on 12/7/41. They're saying America's offical entry into the war started on 12/7/41. Since this issue is about AMERICAN soldiers (remember the cartoon?) England, France and Poland are irrelevant.

The point is that England and Poland ARE with us in Iraq.
So,to say the war in Iraq has lasted longer then WW2 is wrong,because those 2 countries were fighting WW2 for over 2 years BEFORE we got into it.
And,British troops were involved in the Pacific theater during WW2 (and the Asian theater) during our Island hopping campaign against the Germans.

The "cartoon" you posted mentions North Africa,Europe,and the Pacific.
Now,the Brits were fighting in all of those places 2 years BEFORE we got involved in the war,so if you want to be honest about your cartoon,you must include the Brits.

Instead,you are totally discounting their actions in WW2 to say that the US alone did it.
If you want to compare Iraq to WW2,thats fine.

But at least be honest enough to include the Brits and Poland in your comparison.After all,they ARE in Iraq with us now.

First of all MM this is Bush's war, not the Brits or Poland. Second the cartoon was about Bush and the American troops. It did not imply in any way any other troops other than ours. If you want to include other troops that's your diversion.

Noticed what the cartoon says; "these Veterans". Notice the symbol in the background; American Legion, not the British Legion or the Polish Legion; AMERICAN.

So,the British vets that are in the American Legion dont count?

BAGHDAD - An explosion at a Shiite mosque in Baghdad killed at least eight worshippers Monday, the fourth anniversary of the start of the war, while a series of car bombs struck the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, killing 12, police said.

A poll conducted for the anniversary found that the optimism that helped sustain Iraqis during the initial years of the war has dissolved into widespread fear, anger and distress amid unrelenting violence.

Reflecting on the anniversary, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice staunchly defended going to war in Iraq, but acknowledged the Bush administration likely erred by failing initially to send enough troops to quell the civil strife that followed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The latest attacks highlighted the challenges facing U.S. and Iraqi forces seeking to curb sectarian bloodshed with a month-old security crackdown that has led to a drastic drop in execution-style killings but failed to stop the bombings.

And what will the militias do when we leave? We have to leave sometime. I don't suppose we will be staying there forever, are we? At two billion dollars a week I don't think we can affort to.