Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia: "Britain just a small island"


Big Bad Voodoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

The reason it sounds uneducated is because of the grammatical differences. E.g. saying "through September" when they mean "through to September" and so on. These sound like childish mistakes.

So what makes UK English better than US English? Because it started in the UK?

We have five times as many people as you and we do just fine with our version of English. Just because it started over there doesn't mean that the UK has final say as to what is or isn't correct.

You actually sound kind of snobbish.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Putin and Great Britain, it strikes me, if the reports are fully true, that Putin has lost it. His assertion is a joke, so he loses credibility everywhere, and in the meantime irritates an important nation out its ear.

I rather suspect the British will regret the action of their parliament in this. Of all people, that the British would appear to be tolerant of chemical warfare is astonishing.

I assure you that the British people are not regretting this. Cameron had no support whatsoever for getting involved in yet another foreign war, in aid of people who hate our guts anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what makes UK English better than US English? Because it started in the UK?

We have five times as many people as you and we do just fine with our version of English. Just because it started over there doesn't mean that the UK has final say as to what is or isn't correct.

You actually sound kind of snobbish.......

I didn't say the UK has final say. I was merely pointing out that to the British, a large amount of American speech sounds wrong and uneducated. If you're happy to be thought so, then that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assure you that the British people are not regretting this. Cameron had no support whatsoever for getting involved in yet another foreign war, in aid of people who hate our guts anyway.

In other words the British are willing to tolerate the use of chemical weapons. They may not regret this now but in the long run I hope they won't come to regret it later.

I didn't say the UK has final say. I was merely pointing out that to the British, a large amount of American speech sounds wrong and uneducated. If you're happy to be thought so, then that's fine.

And it seems you are happy to appear snobbish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assure you that the British people are not regretting this. Cameron had no support whatsoever for getting involved in yet another foreign war, in aid of people who hate our guts anyway.

Elfin, why do you think they hate our guts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words the British are willing to tolerate the use of chemical weapons. They may not regret this now but in the long run I hope they won't come to regret it later.

What do you mean by tolerate? One can only tolerate something that falls under one's own responsibility. Syria isn't even a former colony (it was French), so we have no business there at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the UK has final say. I was merely pointing out that to the British, a large amount of American speech sounds wrong and uneducated.

Simply because it has it's differences? Still sounds snobbish to me.....

If you're happy to be thought so, then that's fine.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elfin, why do you think they hate our guts?

The fundamentalist Muslims? Lots and lots of reasons, going back 1400 years.

Well not just them, France hates us aswell ;)

It's a different kind of hate between the French and the British. In fact, France has been a close ally of ours for about 200 years.

Simply because it has it's differences? Still sounds snobbish to me.....

?

I merely state it how it is. I didn't even say I agreed with such a sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not just them, France hates us aswell ;)

The French hate the Spanish and the Italians too!! LOL

Oh, they hate the Belgians too.......and the Germans maybe?

ha ha ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be best to limit the generalizations about who the French hate to Parisians. My experiences elsewhere in France have been wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it might be best to limit the generalizations about who the French hate to Parisians. My experiences elsewhere in France have been wonderful.

I was just joking..... :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Putin and Great Britain, it strikes me, if the reports are fully true, that Putin has lost it. His assertion is a joke, so he loses credibility everywhere, and in the meantime irritates an important nation out its ear.

I rather suspect the British will regret the action of their parliament in this. Of all people, that the British would appear to be tolerant of chemical warfare is astonishing.

The British are not tolerant of chemical weapon attacks. The UK would carry out military strikes but it has to come from the UN, UN sanctioned. the United Nations are a disgrace. their weapons inspector mission was a complete waste of time - their mission was to determine what chemicals were used, and NOT to apportion blame: i think the world wants to know, and still does - who fired the weapons. was is Assads Forces or the Rebel Forces. there is no point in blasting the place to bits if the western backed Rebels carried out the attack. and what an embarrassment it would be if it turned out the Rebels did use chemical weapons.

something else more astonishing is their regional neighbours have done nothing, Turkey next door biggest military in the region, surely they could form a coalition with the Arab league and do the military strike. its shouldn't be left to a country 4,000 miles away.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British are not tolerant of chemical weapon attacks. The UK would carry out military strikes but it has to come from the UN, UN sanctioned. the United Nations are a disgrace. their weapons inspector mission was a complete waste of time - their mission was to determine what chemicals were used, and NOT to apportion blame: i think the world wants to know, and still does - who fired the weapons. was is Assads Forces or the Rebel Forces. there is no point in blasting the place to bits if the western backed Rebels carried out the attack. and what an embarrassment it would be if it turned out the Rebels did use chemical weapons.

something else more astonishing is their regional neighbours have done nothing, Turkey next door biggest military in the region, surely they could form a coalition with the Arab league and do the military strike. its shouldn't be left to a country 4,000 miles away.

Agreed, friend.

Regional responsibility versus 'police' countries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From when?

Big Bad Voodoo

I know that we're not supposed to do this but BBV mentioned that UM is a place to practice his English.

The proper term is, "Since when?". 'From' is more an indistinct measure of distance. Example, "I brought this from over there."

'Since' is more an indistinct length of time from when something happened, or first happened. Example, "I've been living here since your father was in diapers."

I hope you're not offended. :)

But, back on topic.

There's an old saying in Canada, "As I spend half of my time explaining to Americans that I'm not British, and the other half explaining to the British that I'm not an American, there's little time left to be a Canadian."

As far as Russian influence goes... none. (Except for the great Russian writers and composers, of course.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people correcting my English -- especially the idiomatic use of those terrible little "small words" either. Just don't use it to try to put me down (I know you well enough that I wouldn't accuse you, but it has happened from others) and don't correct my typos (ok?).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people correcting my English -- especially the idiomatic use of those terrible little "small words" either. Just don't use it to try to put me down (I know you well enough that I wouldn't accuse you, but it has happened from others) and don't correct my typos (ok?).

No problem! :) I could spend more time correcting my own.

I still can't believe that English wasn't your first language. I think that you apologized once for your 'poor' English, I had a good laugh (considering how some of us 'native speakers' abuse it).

Edit: to correct punctuation. See? :)

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British are not tolerant of chemical weapon attacks. The UK would carry out military strikes but it has to come from the UN, UN sanctioned. the United Nations are a disgrace. their weapons inspector mission was a complete waste of time - their mission was to determine what chemicals were used, and NOT to apportion blame: i think the world wants to know, and still does - who fired the weapons. was is Assads Forces or the Rebel Forces. there is no point in blasting the place to bits if the western backed Rebels carried out the attack. and what an embarrassment it would be if it turned out the Rebels did use chemical weapons.

something else more astonishing is their regional neighbours have done nothing, Turkey next door biggest military in the region, surely they could form a coalition with the Arab league and do the military strike. its shouldn't be left to a country 4,000 miles away.

I agree. Those weapons inspectors not apportioning blame is like a detective going to a murder scene, saying 'Yep, there's been a murder. Pack up, let's go.' Without solving the crime. A monumental waste of time.

The UN is like a guard dog with no teeth. In my opinion they should send in some hostile extraction teams and put Assad and the rebel leaders on trial (or find out who used the nerve gas and just stick them on trial) or send in a ground force from a coalition of UN countries to referee the war.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Putin and Great Britain, it strikes me, if the reports are fully true, that Putin has lost it. His assertion is a joke, so he loses credibility everywhere, and in the meantime irritates an important nation out its ear.

I rather suspect the British will regret the action of their parliament in this. Of all people, that the British would appear to be tolerant of chemical warfare is astonishing.

That is rather insulting to the British people.

The "No" vote taken, was about whether or not to strike Assad's regime without any evidence pointing at that as being the culprit for the chemical attacks. It was Cameron, in his petulance at losing the vote, who then declared no action would be taken by Britain in any circumstance.

The British people, through their representative MP's, did not vote for "tolerance of chemical weapons use", they voted against unilateral military action against an entity (the Syrian State) without evidence justifying it.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the United Nations are a disgrace. their weapons inspector mission was a complete waste of time - their mission was to determine what chemicals were used, and NOT to apportion blame: i think the world wants to know, and still does - who fired the weapons.

While I agree that it is evidence of the party responsible which is required, I wonder who actually set the agenda for the UN inspection mission?

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Those weapons inspectors not apportioning blame is like a detective going to a murder scene, saying 'Yep, there's been a murder. Pack up, let's go.' Without solving the crime. A monumental waste of time.

The UN is like a guard dog with no teeth. In my opinion they should send in some hostile extraction teams and put Assad and the rebel leaders on trial (or find out who used the nerve gas and just stick them on trial) or send in a ground force from a coalition of UN countries to referee the war.

I agree, as for sending in a ground force. i'd just like to highlight something, a question was asked in the British parliament in at Prime ministers questions. when the MP stood up to ask his question the whole house fell into deadly silence. giving the impression it was of the most importance, and that question was, 'what will the response of the UK be and more importantly NATO - if Russia puts boots on the ground in syria'. the prime minster struggled to answer. but it makes me think what do they know behind the scenes i never thought of the possibility of Russia putting boots on the ground in Syria. but there must be rumblings of the possibility.

While I agree that it is evidence of the party responsible which is required, I wonder who actually set the agenda for the UN inspection mission?

I too would like also like to know who set the mission agenda. for all the great the UN does there is a major flaw in the system, and that is the Vetoes certain members have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if Russia puts boots on the ground in syria'. the prime minster struggled to answer. but it makes me think what do they know behind the scenes i never thought of the possibility of Russia putting boots on the ground in Syria. but there must be rumblings of the possibility.

I think the US will be closely looking at the movements of 76th VDV Division. If Russian boots hit the ground in Syria it will highly likely be them. They have some heavy rep, and can move to the front very quickly.

http://en.wikipedia....ssault_Division

And just a wild thought. Nostradamus said something about the eagle, the bear and the dragon being present at Armageddon. Golly gosh, what could they be metaphors for? :)

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just a wild thought. Nostradamus said something about the eagle, the bear and the dragon being present at Armageddon. Golly gosh, what could they be metaphors for? :)

Now you got me interest in Nostradamus! Which quatrain is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.