 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Watching Bush's speech
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:04 PM So 282RA is one of those Canadian wimps that like to run away whenever there is trouble? US |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:13 PM Sometimes, Uncle Sham, getting out as gracefully as possible is the best thing you can do. Especially if you started the trouble in the first place. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM Guest (Uncle Sham)--please tell us about your military service--especially your combat service. Thanks so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:03 AM We Canadian wimps took Washington in the War of 1812 and we burned the White House down, Uncle Sam. ;-) We also defeated every attempt your guys made to invade Canada during that war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM By the way, Little Hawk, regarding the American Revolution being "chessboard" style warfare, what you say is essentially accurate—but not totally. Although the American Revolution was not primarily a guerilla war, there was a substantial amount of that going on, much to the exasperation of the British. I quote the following from The Encyclopedia of American History: American guerrilla warfare during colonial times, the Revolution, and the War of 1812 was based to a large degree on knowledge of the Indian tactics of hit-and-run raids, ambush, and cover and concealment. During the Revolutionary War, for example, Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox" of the southern campaign, used these techniques against the more traditionally organized British forces.In addition, there was Ethan Allen and the "Green Mountain Boys" who used guerilla tactics. And, of course, there were the famous "Minutemen" (undoubtedly the historical basis for the inclusion of the controversial Second Amendment), civilians who owned their own guns and were prepared to be called up on a minute's notice. From the same source cited above: Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and had to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmans' clothes, while others had buckskin hunting outfits. Some added Indian-style touches to intimidate the enemy, even including war-paint. Most used hunting rifles, which did not have bayonets but were accurate at long range.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM True enough, Don. The locals always have an innate advantage when it comes to practicing guerilla warfare against a foreign army, which was your original point. They also have the advantage that they are probably not going to leave or quit fighting, because they were born there. ;-) Thus they tend to outlast the occupiers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM Just a little aside relating to the War of 1812. We not only burned the White House, we took their dinner service. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars it was presented to the Duke of Wellington and used in his London home, Apsley House. Apsley House is used by British Prime Ministers on occasion for formal dinners. So when the British Prime Minister hosts a banquet in honour of a visiting President of the United States, the guest is actually eating from plates and cutlery that by rights are actually his. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM My goodness! That is a fascinating tidbit of information indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:08 PM >>So 282RA is one of those Canadian wimps that like to run away whenever there is trouble?<< And you call me an asshole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM >>Apsley House is used by British Prime Ministers on occasion for formal dinners. So when the British Prime Minister hosts a banquet in honour of a visiting President of the United States, the guest is actually eating from plates and cutlery that by rights are actually his.<< What's so surprising about that. The British are the biggest cultural thieves in the world. The British Museum is teaming with artifacts stolen from other countries. The British looted the Imperial Palace in Forbidden City in Beijing (Peking). That swag is still on display at the museum. Why did they loot it? Because the Chinese dared to rebel against this monstrous nation forcing opium down their throats. Not far from this Chinese exhibit is the Greek one containing unique, ancient works from this once-great civilization. The Greek govt wants it back because they never gave to the British. They simply took it. I hear Britain is going down the shitter these days. High time and much deserved and good riddance to the biggest imperialists in the human history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:20 PM Aw, c'mon bombardier - you chaps in North America did your bit. The White Man's Burden was aimed at an American audience when Kipling wrote it. Puff yourself up with pride at this little adventure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:37 PM Just like the Brits to lecture the rest of the world about their own imperialism. Hide behind America--which what your nation ALWAYS does--and then you can lecture them about their vices while you ignore your own. There has never been anything as horrible and brutal as the British Empire. And isn't it funny that when our dumbfuck president wanted to invade Iraq for no good reason, who jumped up and yelled, "Ooooo! Can we come too? Can we help??" Now, look at you--trying to sneak out of there and pretend you didn't play a major role in the rape and destruction of that country. What I don't get is that Brtain KNEW the invasion was wrong--the Downing Street Memos proved that--and they went along anyway. That's really telling us something about that country. That's really the problem--you haven't changed. You just push your imperialist agenda by hiding behind America. Well, hide no more because America is going down the shitter too. And for the same well-deserved reasons. That's how any nation should know when it is about to do something unethical--when Britain wants to tag along. Then you know it's wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:15 PM Look, 282RA, please don't hold back. Just say what's on your mind, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:33 PM Isn't diplomacy a wonderful thing? (All choked up with emotion . . . *sob*) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM Heh! The USA and Great Britain are equally imperialistic in general tendency...it's just that the USA is the predominant power now, and Britain tags along. The crucial difference, as far as I can see, is that it was much easier to fool a majority of Americans into supporting the Iraq war. A majority of UK citizens were opposed to the idea. The British population is not quite so naive, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Charley Noble Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:25 PM If we only had a queen! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:32 PM Two to choose from, Charlie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM LH--how many Canadians were involved in taking DC in the War of 1812? Do you have any idea? I had thought the attackers were British. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM It only required five Canucks, Ron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM Yeah, 2 moose, 2 beaver, and a courier du bois named Jacques, by Gar! ;-) We Canadians were the British back then, Don. We had not yet become separate in identity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM In fact, the Halibut Treaty of 1923 was the first international treaty that Canada negotiated and signed on its own behalf. It was with the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM Dat's right. And de t'ing is, dem goddam Americans, by Gar, dey took more fish dan dey were allowed to by dat treaty in nineteen twenny-tree, dose bastard! Tabernac! We should 'ave burn down dat Washington place again, mes amis, dat's what I'm t'inking! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:38 PM Hey LH--that's not fair--you get to pick which British engagements you were involved in? You get the glory of burning the White House but not the Battle of New Orleans? (I'll certainly give you all the US failed stupidly naive attempts to take Canada--evidently the Americans were convinced the French Canadians were itching to throw off the "British yoke"--not realizing that conservative French Canadians did not identify with France at that point--under Napoleon-- at all.) Among--many--other miscalculations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM Your point is a good one, Ron. ;-) Just keep in mind that I was retaliating against some ignorant twerp who suggested earlier that all Canadians are wimps, so I thought I'd meet him on his own level, as it were... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM None But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over. In 1814 we took a little trip Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans. [Chorus:] We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin. There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago. We fired once more and they began to runnin' on Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. We looked down the river and we see'd the British come. And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum. They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring. We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing. [Chorus] Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well. Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well [Chorus] Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.** We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down. So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round. We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind. [Chorus] Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,REX-84 Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:49 PM Just taking the new name out for a test. Is that the criteria now, to post here? And does anyone know if this one is taken? There's probably a list of the member names somewhere, and this one could be on it. If someone could kindly let me know. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM Great powers have no friends, "Uncle Sam". They have interests. When their interests coincide, they help each other. I'll tell you what saved England from the Nazis: A hell of a good air defence system, some timely errors on the part of the German high command (who kept changing their objectives in the Battle of Britain), and the Russians!!!!!!!! The bulk of the German army perished on the steppes of Russia, and it was the Russian campaign which broke Germany's fighting strength in that war. So going by your logic, we should like the Russians quite a bit better than we do you... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM Now the US again has stupidly naive leadership for an invasion. Why, it's just like old times. I'm getting so nostalgic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:16 AM Hey, Uncle Sham--with your great enthusiasm for war, you were going to tell us about your own personal military experience, with particular emphasis on your combat experience. Seems you must have forgotten to do that--so how about right now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:23 AM So the Normandy invasion was unnecessary, unwanted by the Brits and it did not have any impact on the outcome of the war? Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941. Earlier, there was an entirely separate program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for base rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved [due to the protests of anti-war wimps] and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping US forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM Encyclopædia Britannica tells the story of the Normandy Invasion: On June 6, 1944, a date known ever since as D-Day, a mighty armada crossed a narrow strip of sea from England to Normandy, France, and cracked the Nazi grip on western Europe. Omaha Beach Second beach from the west among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the U.S. 29th and 1st infantry divisions, many of whose soldiers were drowned during the approach from ships offshore or were killed by defending fire from German troops placed on heights surrounding the beach. Utah Beach The westernmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by elements of the U.S. 4th Infantry Division and was taken with relatively few casualties. In the predawn hours of D-Day, units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions were airdropped inland from the landing beach. They suffered many casualties from drowning and enemy fire but succeeded in their aim of isolating the seaborne invasion force from defending Germans. Sword Beach Tthe easternmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 3rd Division, with French and British commandos attached. Shortly after midnight on D-Day morning, elements of the 6th Airborne Division, in a daring glider-borne assault, seized bridges inland from the beach and also silenced artillery pieces that threatened the seaborne landing forces. Gold Beach The centre beach of the five designated landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted and taken from defending German troops on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 50th Infantry Division. Juno Beach The second beach from the east among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division, who took heavy casualties in the first wave but by the end of the day succeeded in wresting control of the area from defending German troops. Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners. Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:30 AM Just a couple of little notes to Guest Uncle Sam and to Guest 282AR. Guest 282AR first: "The British are the biggest cultural thieves in the world. The British Museum is teaming with artifacts stolen from other countries. The British looted the Imperial Palace in Forbidden City in Beijing (Peking). That swag is still on display at the museum. Why did they loot it? Because the Chinese dared to rebel against this monstrous nation forcing opium down their throats." Called war reparations, was universally carried on by all victors in varying degrees throughout history. The time that it was demonstrably taken to excess was by the Allies at the end of the First World War, the burden of reparations that they placed on Germany meant that the Second World War was more or less inevitable. Standard practice of the day 282AR - nothing was stolen - take a bit of consolation in that those artifacts are safe and well cared for. "Not far from this Chinese exhibit is the Greek one containing unique, ancient works from this once-great civilization. The Greek govt wants it back because they never gave to the British. They simply took it." These are the Elgin Marbles you are referring to Guest 282AR. Once again you are wrong, the "Marbles" are the property of Lord Elgin (who counts Robert the Bruce amongst his ancestors), they are on permanent loan to the museum (IIRC). Lord Elgin actually has a signed receipt for them. He bought them from the Turkish Governor of Athens (Greece did not exist at the time). The reason Elgin bought the marble fresco sections was because at the time the Parthenon was being used as a powder magazine (it later blew up) and the marble frescos were being stripped off the building and burnt down to provide whitewash for buildings - he bought them to save them. So chances are that if they were not now residing in the museum, they wouldn't exist at all. Any of the above 282AR any official guide at the Acropolis in Athens will tell you. So nothing was "simply taken". To Guest Uncle Sam: I would draw your attention to a speech made by Churchill early summer in 1940 around the time of Dunkirk in which he said, " Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war". Not withstanding the enormous contribution made by both the United States of America and the USSR to the allied war effort - Hitler knew that he had failed to defeat Britain by the end of September 1940 which predates your lend-lease act by quite a number of months. As for the 50 old obsolete "four stack" destroyers - hate to point this out to you Uncle Sam but we paid for those and paid for those at the time they were handed over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM Teribus-- "I would draw your attention to"--the actual topic of this thread. You have yet to even start to make the case that Bush is Churchill, that this year is 1940, etc. Also: Saddam is: 1) a megalomaniac bent on world conquest--as you might want to argue Hitler was in 1940. 2) dead Gee, I wonder which one of these is right. And it certainly is revealing how many statesmen are coming around to what I've been saying for over a year--and you've been denying: probably the most important question in Iraq right now is: can the Iraqi Sunnis, derided by you as the equivalent of hardline Nazis in 1945, trust the Iraqi police? And its corollary--will Maliki actually purge the police of Shiite militias--instead of just talking about it? Your attitude-that the Sunnis should just accept the new situation--has been wrong from the start--and is still wrong. It's also interesting that somehow you've forgotten to answer my earlier question to you: how long would you accept the situation if your own police were targeting you for the crime of just being Catholic, Protestant, Irish, English, Welsh, Scots--without regard to what you had personally done? Which is precisely analogous to what you are saying the Sunnis should do--accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM Well, it's no wonder the country is in the shitter when even a small internet community can't discuss Bush's speech without heading into a bunch of retarded, racist, off-topic bickering. Way to go, guys! USA NUMBAR OEN!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM It is quite refreshing to find myself and Teribus on the same side of an argument for a change! ;-) Uncle Sam, I never said that the USA had not helped the UK during the war, did I? No, I didn't. However, the USA did not save the UK, the UK saved themselves. Their winning of the Battle of Britain prevented the Germans from defeating England, and there was really no possibility of the Germans defeating England following that. That was in September 1940. I know you've grown up on a diet of Hollywood movies where the USA always arrives like the cavalry with John Wayne at the head of the troops and wins everything for everyone, but it just ain't so in real life. The entrance of the USA into WWII in December '41 was simply the driving of the final nails into the coffin of Germany's hopes for victory. The Germans had already gotten themselves by that time into a war they simply could not win...with Russia and the British empire. To add the USA to their troubles at that point was to make an already impossible situation a good deal worse, and all the wiser and more rational German commanders knew that. Ernst Udet, for example, was so depressed by the failure of the Battle of Britain, compounded by the insanity of then attacking Russia, that he committed suicide. (Udet was a tremendously courageous and capable man who had been a high-scoring ace for Germany in the First World War, and then had gone on to serve in the Luftwaffe High Command. When the Battle of Britain failed, Reichsmarshall Goering falsely shifted the blame to Ernst Udet...which was just Goering blaming other people for his own errors. Udet was very upset about it. Then when Hitler decided to attack Russia, Udet, like many other German officers, was simply appalled. He saw the handwriting on the wall...defeat and disaster. He had lost faith in the Nazi government at that point, and he figured all was lost, so he shot himself.) If you could think in shades of gray, Uncle Sam, rather than insisting on total opposites of extreme white and black, you would see that I am not saying that the USA did not help the UK in WWII...I am simply saying this: They did not save them. The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM The point of mentioning Lend Lease was to illustrate that the American people were vehemently against entering the war or even supplying war materiel. The liberal Democrat, FDR, found a way around this with lend lease and even blatantly lying to the American public to give material assistance. Without that assistance the war would have lasted longer and more lives would have been lost. FDR did everything that Bush is accused of doing illegally and more. It took Pearl Harbor to change popular opinion. I think the topic here is Bush's speech and actions are all wrong. If you put it into context, perspective and pay attention to lessons learned from history, a different conclusion can be drawn. At the very least a wait and see attitude is called for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM *YAWN* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM What you say about FDR is mostly correct. He was dealing with an isolationist public and Congress. From a pragmatic point of view, he did the right thing. Bush, however, has made great mistakes in my opinion, and I do not think his position in regards to his "enemies" around the world is in any way comparable to the situation FDR faced with regard to Nazi Germany and Japan. Germany was a major power and a major threat to other nations, at one point (roughly '41-'42) was second to none in military capability, and was in a period of aggressive expansion onto other people's territory. That description is one that fits not America's ragtag Islamic enemies at this time in history...it fits America itself. Like a glove. America is the nation that attacks pre-emptively. America is the nation that invades. America is the nation that occupies foreign lands. You guys are NOT the victim, you are the perpetrator. And the UK and Canada and Australia are complicit in assisting you in your aggression, as are a few other minor participants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM Hummmm. What was all that rot about the sun never sets on the British Empire? I don't recall a similar claim by the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,petr Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM the one event that helped the Americans win the revolutionary war was Benjamin Franklins eventual success in getting the French to send over an army. regarding the Schwarzkopf quote - its hard to imagine the US losing the 91 gulf war given the firepower, number of troops and total superiority the US and the coalition had. (and yet... Schwarzkopf claimed that when the Iraqis sat down to negotiate they outsmarted the US by asking if they could fly helicopters. (Schwarzkopf felt that since the roads were destroyed that it was ok, when they then asked if they could fly ARMED helicopters - he decided thats ok too). (which they then used to brutally put down the rebellion - that George Senior called for - with his comment that the Iraqi people should rise up and topple Saddam).. one thing that (Damn they Outsmarted us!) Schwarzkopf failed to mention in his memoirs is that -and that is obvious to everyone- the US had complete military (land air) superiority , why should a bunch of Iraqi negotiators have any power at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM The sun never sets on the USA financial/military/media-controlled empire either. It's the same thing. You don't need official colonialism to have actual colonialism. Similarly, you don't need official slavery to have actual slavery. Both can be easily achieved unofficially if you have enough money to buy and control client governments in small countries, and enough firepower to smash them up when they don't do what you want them to. So you see, when society modernized enough that official colonialism and official slavery became morally unacceptable to most people...well, then, new ways were quickly found to do it which were unofficial, but equally effective. The new unofficial colonialism is accomplished the same way the old official colonialism was: by having enough money and firepower to exercise control over other people against their will. Every major power practices colonialism, they just don't call it that anymore. The USA, being the biggest major power, practices it the most at present, and the British are right in there with them. The USA is really the new incarnation of the old British Empire. It is to the UK as Rome was to Greece. It's still an Anglo-dominated world out there. The last serious challenger against that Anglo domination was the Soviets, and they lost most of their empire when they started running out of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 13 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM So the UK brags about their empire. The US does not have an empire except in the minds of some no life whiners. What was the Great Expulsion of 1755 all about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM Revisionist history, Uncle Sam. FDR did not lie to the American people about the Lend-Lease program. I was a kid at the time, but old enough to know who was saying what, and we always listened to FDR's "Fireside Chats." I remember his talking quite a bit about the Lend-Lease program. There's a lot of revisionist history about FDR, generally promulgated by columnist Westbrook Pegler, the Rush Limbaugh of his day, and still embraced by the far right. Any attempt to compare Bush with someone like FDR is ludicrous. A bit like trying to compare a chihuahua to a lion. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ebbie Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:26 AM "The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940." Damn, Little Hawk. I wish we had just stayed home. We needed those boys for the Eastern theatre. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM Well, let me make it a bit clearer what I mean. ;-) I said they had saved themselves by September 1940, which they had. I did not say they had defeated Germany by September 1940, they had merely prevented Germany from defeating them. They did not have the power alone to defeat Germany nor did Germany have the means to defeat them, as had already been amply proven. An alliance of the UK, Russia and the USA was required to defeat Germany. Uncle Sam's original statement which I took issue with was "But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over." Wrong. The USA very much helped the British and Russians defeat the Germans...which took a lot of time and blood, and the American effort was fully appreciated by the British and Russians...but the USA did not save the British, because the British had quite handily already saved themselves in 1940, and Hitler knew it. He was confounded by the Luftwaffe's failure to defeat the RAF in 1940 and he reacted by doing absolutely the worst thing possible....he turned East and attacked Russia! He then did a further idiotic thing by immediately declaring war on the USA right after Pearl Harbour happened. He did NOT have to do that, because the Japanese had certainly given him no help in fighting anyone up to that point. I fear that Bush may make a somewhat (if only vaguely) comparable mistake to Hitler's attack on Russia by reacting to the insoluble mess he has created in Iraq by next attacking Iran. If so, he will find, like Hitler, that enlarging an insoluble problem is the worst move you can make. If he does it, though, I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ebbie Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM OK, she harrumphed, simmering down. "I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter." Little Hawk God, I hope not. It is beyond amazing to me that I live amongst people who imo clearly see the perilous situation we've gotten ourselves into led by an idiot. In Alaska, I don't even know anyone who is even close to sanguine. One part I see very clearly is that in the USA we have a lousy government. We need a mechanism for turning them out midstream. 'Loss of confidence' is an excellent, and telling, phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:16 AM It's my opinion, by the way, that no one country acting alone could have defeated the Germans in a land war in western and central Europe after their lopsided victory in the Battle of France. The English certainly could not have done it alone. The USA could not have done it alone either...they needed the UK as a staging ground for fullscale invasion of Europe, and they needed the Russians to tie down 3/4 of the German army for them. The Russians might have been able to defeat the Germans alone...in a very long war of attrition...but I doubt it. I think more likely that it would have ended in a stalemate or that the Germans would have won such a conflict. And to look at it from the other angle...the Germans could not have defeated the USA or Great Britain either, simply because the Germans lacked a big enough navy to project their formidable army across either the English Channel or the Atlantic. They also lacked the kind of large strategic bomber aircraft needed to wage a really effective strategic bombing campaign that could cripple an opponent's industrial base. The only people in WWII who had such aircraft in large numbers were the British and the Americans. Those aircraft were the B-17, the Lancaster, the Halifax, the Stirling, and the B-24. Germany's He 111s, Ju 88s, and Dornier 17s were not 4 engine strategic bombers, they were 2 engine tactical bombers, and they were not up to the task of waging a strategic bombing campaign. The Russians, likewise, lacked such capability, having an almost entirely tactical airforce suited to close support on the battlefield. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM In a deleted post I said that if America had not entered the War it would have continued much longer and more lives would have been lost. In addition to that I would like to add that Germany still would have lost but there would be almost nothing left of England. It would have been a bitter bloddy fight to the end. America did add muscle and resources that I am sure Brits are grateful. Again Pearl Harbor was the turning point for the US that shut up all the anti war whiners. I suppose it will take another 9/11 to shut them up again. As Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Ortega, Raoul Castro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are forming a coalition of Latin American countrys to screw the people of the US, While Al Qaeda trys to take control of Somalia, while the genocide of Christians by Muslims proceeds on Darfur, all the anti-war whiners can think about is getting out of Iraq and impeaching George Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM I'm curious, Uncle Sam, as to what you think would have caused there to be "almost nothing left of England? V-weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM Interesting geography there, Uncle Sam, claiming Ahmadinejad as a Latin American. Is this why the USA invaded the wrong country after 9/11? |
