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 -

Brexit


alibongo
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Updated 25 Nov 2015, 12:33pm... this is the time stamp off the above article you posted. The NSW government can award any tender they like BUT it needs be signed off by the direct investment review board. This news article is only 18 hours old and NOT the 12 months old article you dug up.

After Scott Morrison sparked speculation about State Grid Corporation of China’s bid by declaring national security would be his “prime consideration’’, former premier Bob Carr said rejection would affect NSW’s infrastructure plans, while former Liberal federal leader John Hewson described national security concerns as “spurious’’.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/morrison-warned-blocking-china-tender-will-hurt-ties-and-budget/news-story/070c19981e33f475b06120fa392e5622

I am aware of the dates ... my point was the the one that was won and established and the statement

Quote

 

( "Every single consortium was cleared [by the Foreign Investment Review Board] which obviously meant that the race was very tight," he said. )


 

As for your proposed article it is still Speculation on one side .... Spurious on the other ... hardly definitive as yet with this one but then again its all dollars and sense gone doggedly tangled.

~

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

For it to be the oxymoron you claim it to be it would have to be contradictory.

Example:  

oxymoron
ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
noun
 
  1. a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

~ :lol:

In the literal sense where it stumbles over the common sense ... Untrustworthy business partner is not the semantics of the issue ... it is the state of the matter ~

` If you have an untrustworthy business partner it is neither a sound business nor a fruitful partnership ... and it is also the case if you enter into an untrustworthy business partnership or relationship/marriage come to think of it ~

Hence ... oxymoron bordering on the moronic ~

:yes:

~ gotta go start on getting dinner ready ... cheers ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I am aware of the dates ... my point was the the one that was won and established and the statement

As for your proposed article it is still Speculation on one side .... Spurious on the other ... hardly definitive as yet with this one but then again its all dollars and sense gone doggedly tangled.

 

I don't believe you. I think you saw the title, got exited that your article was the magic bullet and found out otherwise. My article shows that the matter of Chinese investment into a critical industry will have to go through a security clearance. Whether it passes or not is irrelevant. The important thing is that premise is true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, third_eye said:

 

In the literal sense where it stumbles over the common sense ... Untrustworthy business partner is not the semantics of the issue ... it is the state of the matter ~

` If you have an untrustworthy business partner it is neither a sound business nor a fruitful partnership ... and it is also the case if you enter into an untrustworthy business partnership or relationship/marriage come to think of it ~

Hence ... oxymoron bordering on the moronic ~

:yes:

~ gotta go start on getting dinner ready ... cheers ~

Oh the "literal sense" ...lol

You can have a untrustworthy business partner (aren't they all?) that needs to be carefully watched least he steal from you or exceed the limits of the partnership. So how is my example any different? Just admit you choose the wrong word to describe my post. In any case, you're overly concerned with trying to prove your oxymoron remark. Let it go, you're wrong anyway you look at it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

The Soviets made the biggest sacrifice, no doubt about it. But i think its fair to say that the British and Churchill in particular and the unselfish manner in which he persuaded the other leaders to unite was the leading factor in defeating nazi Germany, IMO. The Americans and Soviets i think would have accepted nazi gains for peace but lucky for the free world Churchill wouldn't. And in return Britain lost an empire in the process. A heavy price that Britain will never recover from.

But seriously folks what has this to do with Brexit?    

.

As we are onto Bristory -- :) 

*warning - some highly controversial speculation in this post - batten down the hatches*

 

re the underlined above - (figures approximate to nearest million or part there of -)

yes between 26 and 27 million Russians died -

China - 20 million

Poland - 6 million

Germany - 7 million

UK - half a million

US - half a million

etc

Now it's a funny old thing that the USA were on the same side of communist Russia eh... but were they at the beginning.?

We have seen how proxy armies can be used in Syria - could the US have a longer tradition of using proxy armies
than is generally known - and could the most shocking example be using Nazi Germany as a proxy to fight against
communist Russia .? 

On Sept 5th 1939 America declared it's neutrality - there is information dotted around the internet that
America at least helped to arm both sides of the WW2 MAJOR conflict and the Bush family (and..?) are said
to have helped arm (and other support - Ford) ) Hitler's army - Prescott Bush comes up regarding this-

The US kept out of it but when the Soviet Union pushed Germany back from Moscow they got involved -

(I know there was Pearl Harbour but there is even some conspiracy stuff about that --- )


might this (US entering war in Europe) have been because it now looked like the USSR were going to win and the US wanted 
to secure it's influence and military bases in Europe - rather than let Russia have a free reign in that direction..? 

 http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

September 5, 1939 - United States proclaims its neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland. 

snip -  

November 20, 1941 - Germans take Rostov.

November 27, 1941 - Soviet troops retake Rostov.

December 5, 1941 - German attack on Moscow is abandoned.

December 6, 1941 - Soviet Army launches a major counter-offensive around Moscow.

December 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.

December 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

December 11, 1941 - Hitler declares war on the United States.

____________________________________________________________________________

???

 

Aaaaanyway LLM - questionmark thinks me and Tarkin are Russian spies - :D

and you are in the frame as well - via Helen before she flounced off - Munich thread I think it was -

LOL - 

.

 

 

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

4 minutes ago, bee said:

.

As we are onto Bristory -- :) 

*warning - some highly controversial speculation in this post - batten down the hatches*

 

re the underlined above - (figures approximate to nearest million or part there of -)

yes between 26 and 27 million Russians died -

China - 20 million

Poland - 6 million

Germany - 7 million

UK - half a million

US - half a million

etc

Now it's a funny old thing that the USA were on the same side of communist Russia eh... but were they at the beginning.?

We have seen how proxy armies can be used in Syria - could the US have a longer tradition of using proxy armies
than is generally known - and could the most shocking example be using Nazi Germany as a proxy to fight against
communist Russia .? 

On Sept 5th 1939 America declared it's neutrality - there is information dotted around the internet that
America at least helped to arm both sides of the WW2 MAJOR conflict and the Bush family (and..?) are said
to have helped arm (and other support - Ford) ) Hitler's army - Prescott Bush comes up regarding this-

The US kept out of it but when the Soviet Union pushed Germany back from Moscow they got involved -

(I know there was Pearl Harbour but there is even some conspiracy stuff about that --- )


might this (US entering war in Europe) have been because it now looked like the USSR were going to win and the US wanted 
to secure it's influence and military bases in Europe - rather than let Russia have a free reign in that direction..? 

 http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

September 5, 1939 - United States proclaims its neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland. 

snip -  

November 20, 1941 - Germans take Rostov.

November 27, 1941 - Soviet troops retake Rostov.

December 5, 1941 - German attack on Moscow is abandoned.

December 6, 1941 - Soviet Army launches a major counter-offensive around Moscow.

December 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.

December 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

December 11, 1941 - Hitler declares war on the United States.

____________________________________________________________________________

???

 

Aaaaanyway LLM - questionmark thinks me and Tarkin are Russian spies - :D

and you are in the frame as well - via Helen before she flounced off - Munich thread I think it was -

LOL - 

.

 

 

Hey bee. As you say you're not the only one that has been called a Russian spy. I have too, Helen absolutely savaged me. So this means we're comrades now bee with QM and Tarkin ;) Such a shame hearing of Helen wanting to have a break from the forum, since i enjoyed reading Helen's posts, even if sometimes she got excited. If you're reading this Helen come back and be our comrade too :)

...i've never heard of that hypothesis before and it makes perfect sense to me. Playing off the old European powers against each other during WW2 and then cleaning up would make sense. America has more or less taken over Britain's empire. Canada, Australia, New Zealand are virtual U.S. client states. Germany and France and the Europe they need are also dependent on America. Hell even Britain is American territory. America is an empire! And if you think that the U.K escaped U.S. dominance then just look at the U.K's nuclear deterrent. Can't be fired or targeted without U.S. approval.

Back to WW2... it seems that America was reluctant to enter and only really committed itself after attacked by Japan. If Japan hadn't attacked then America could have just sat back and watched Europe bleed dry till the end. Of course having the Soviets control Europe would not have served American interests. So they entered and fast. And like your chronological time line shows in just 20 odd days the entire WW2 American narrative just fell into place. I think you're on to something.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

and I think 'we' (ie UK) have only just finished off paying back the money the US loaned us for the war...!!!!

don't have time to double check that right now - 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bee said:

.

and I think 'we' (ie UK) have only just finished off paying back the money the US loaned us for the war...!!!!

don't have time to double check that right now - 

.

You see that incredible... the U.K borrowed money from the U.S. so it could fight a crazy tyrant. The U.K could have just as easily made its peace with the nazis and kept its Empire. Instead it paid the U.S. for the privilege to hand over control of its empire to the U.S. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bee said:

.

and I think 'we' (ie UK) have only just finished off paying back the money the US loaned us for the war...!!!!

don't have time to double check that right now - 

.

Ealdwita snippet alert.......

29th. December 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

I don't believe you. I think you saw the title, got exited that your article was the magic bullet and found out otherwise. My article shows that the matter of Chinese investment into a critical industry will have to go through a security clearance. Whether it passes or not is irrelevant. The important thing is that premise is true.

 

THere you go ... Every single consortium was cleared [by the Foreign Investment Review Board]

Cleared old boy ... and these numbers won ...

Quote

 

NSW Premier Mike Baird this morning announced the NSW Electricity Networks consortium had won the bid for the 99-year TransGrid lease after offering to pay $10.258 billion.

TransGrid was the first "poles and wires" business to be put on the market as part of the State Government's plan to lease power assets to raise money for infrastructure investment.

The consortium consists of:

  • Canadian pension fund CDPQ (24.99 per cent)
  • Infrastructure fund manager Hastings, as manager of the Utilities Trust of Australia (20.02 per cent)
  • Tawreed Investments Limited, described by the Government as "the global direct infrastructure investment vehicle of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority" (19.99 per cent)
  • Wren House Infrastructure, owned by the Kuwait Investment Authority (19.99 per cent)
  • ASX-listed energy infrastructure manager Spark Infrastructure (15.01 per cent).

The transaction means the consortium is set to become the biggest player in the national electricity grid and take over part of the Federal Government's fibre optic network, as well as control much of the nation's backup electricity supply.

Mr Baird said the lease deal with the Australian-led consortium was a "stunning" result.

 

and you don't have to believe me ... least of all in fact , seeing that believing is somewhat of a predicament for you ...

~

4 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

You can have a untrustworthy business partner (aren't they all?) that needs to be carefully watched least he steal from you or exceed the limits of the partnership. So how is my example any different? Just admit you choose the wrong word to describe my post. In any case, you're overly concerned with trying to prove your oxymoron remark. Let it go, you're wrong anyway you look at it.   

~

If you enter into partnership with untrustworthy parties then of course you are right ... as much as you enter into partnerships just to steal ... which to me is contrary to what partnerships is supposed to mean ~

which here means I am happy to be wrong in relation to what you define as 'partnerships'

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Oh yes he did ( A fish called Wanda... love that movie ). 

Steve replied to one of Spud's posts (post 222). Spud casually mentioned waterloo and Steve broke out into an off key continuous rendition of Rule Britannia ever since. For all we know Steve's still in the backyard singing his lungs out...lol  

So, you're still wrong then.  He didn't try to derail this thread, he responded to other posters.

If you want to be foolishly wrong, that's your right.  Don't drag the rest of us into your embarrassing light-less pit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TopToffee said:

Dont be nastyThorvir.Your posts are above that.You are an amazingly good poster.!

Oh no, helen deserves every dripping ounce of sarcasm that anyone can muster.

I thank you for your compliment, but her and I don't mix well, she's trolled me one too many times and I'm quite happy that she's taking her ball and going home.

I'd much prefer that she stay and improve her posts, but if she wants to leave, and blame everyone else but herself for her frustration, plus lay out her usual insults on the way out, then bye bye!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bee said:

.

and I think 'we' (ie UK) have only just finished off paying back the money the US loaned us for the war...!!!!

don't have time to double check that right now - 

.

Yes, 

The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Hey bee. As you say you're not the only one that has been called a Russian spy. I have too, Helen absolutely savaged me. So this means we're comrades now bee with QM and Tarkin ;) 

 

 

They provide nice furry hats, though. I think mine's Siberian Mink. I asked for payment in vodka, it was that or cabbage soup. :unsure: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I agree it was a team effort by all concerned. there would have been no VE day without the USA in the same way there wouldn't have be a VE day without the Russians. But apparently and according to Black Red Devil we have to thank the Japanese who prevented us from being Invaded and occupied. Even though we prevented that from happening the year before Pearl Harbour. 

i

Did you not read my follow on post. I've quoted it above for your convenience . Does that sound like i was saying we won the war on our own and saved the world. - im still waiting for you to explain exactly why we should thank the Japanese for saving the UK from Invasion, oh that's right you attempted to answer with "we'll never know" "but your pretty certain we (Britain) would have eventually fallen to the Germans" oh so now were basing that on your opinion and not evidence. So lets thank Japan for pearl harbour just in case because "we'll never know" lets stick to the facts next time.

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

It's such arrogance (below) that's laughable and it seems to imply Britain saved Europe, almost annoyingly and reluctantly.  While your post seems to suggest that Britain even saved the world. :lol: 

"and we are sick of helping out Europe since Waterloo"

For starters, if the Prussians didn't turn up on time at Waterloo, Wellington would have lost the battle.  So Europeans can also thank the Eastern Germans for "helping them out".

We'll never know, but for what it's worth, I'm pretty certain Britain would have eventually fallen to the Germans.  Does that mean that I'm claiming that Britain didn't kick a$$ in the Battle of Britain?  No.  The heroics of the RAF pilots are well recognised.  Also the resistance and supply from the British population were a deciding factor in the battle.  But Hitler turned his attention to Russia because the Russians just got their butts kicked by Finland and Summer was approaching, the best time for a ground invasion.  He obviously thought the Russians were easy meat and he would have Blitzkrieged he's way to Moscow in no time (and almost did) like he did with France earlier and then come back to Britain later.  The Russians kicked him back into place so Europeans can also thank the Russians. 

In the mean time, Americans were kicking butt in the Pacific keeping a dangerous ally away from joining German Forces on more fronts.  Not until 1944 did the Allies go on the offensive against the Axis on the Western Front while on the Eastern Front the Germans were busy fighting the Russians.  Until then it was pretty stagnant and the Germans were still occupying most of Europe.  The first offensive invasion was in Sicily with American and Canadian troops joining British troops. Until Americans started sending heavy divisions into Europe Britain was mainly on the defensive.

So while I'm not denying Britain had a heavy role to play in WWII, they wouldn't have saved themselves in WWII if it wasn't for the help of others, including the various resistance movements.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

We'll never know, but for what it's worth, I'm pretty certain Britain would have eventually fallen to the Germans.

As soon as Adolf made one of his first big mistakes in switching attention from keeping pressure on Fighter Command to bombing London the chance of his ever being able to mount a successful invasion dwindled to nothing, I think. From that point on (well, from 1941 on) he steadily added enemies, and his only worthwhile ally, Japan, was never in a position where it could really assist him in any way. So I think britain did pretty much keep the hope of civilisation alive until Uncle Joe and Uncle Dwight were in a position to really start hitting him hard. 

No, none of this is very much to do with Brexit, but since there doesn't seem much point flogging that horse any more we may as well talk about other things, mightn't we. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Did you not read my follow on post. I've quoted it above for your convenience . Does that sound like i was saying we won the war on our own and saved the world. - im still waiting for you to explain exactly why we should thank the Japanese for saving the UK from Invasion, oh that's right you attempted to answer with "we'll never know" "but your pretty certain we (Britain) would have eventually fallen to the Germans" oh so now were basing that on your opinion and not evidence. So lets thank Japan for pearl harbour just in case because "we'll never know" lets stick to the facts next time.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that if the Americans didn't enter WWII Britain alone would have saved Europe from the Germans?? :lol:  Are you suggesting that Britain kicked back the Germans on the Eastern Front and not the Russians? I'm stumped by so much arrogance and obliviousness.  Why don't you explain to us how Britain did it because our text books seem to indicate something different.

Start off from the phrase ": and we are sick of helping out Europe since Waterloo" and work your way from there.  Let's not be misunderstood or misquote me, the phrase, which you obviously defend and support, was intended to mean "we saved Europe" and not "we assisted Europe".  Again, don't try the high moral ground act, I'm not denying Britain's involvement and importance in WWII.

I think Brexit has gotten to your head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

As soon as Adolf made one of his first big mistakes in switching attention from keeping pressure on Fighter Command to bombing London the chance of his ever being able to mount a successful invasion dwindled to nothing, I think. From that point on (well, from 1941 on) he steadily added enemies, and his only worthwhile ally, Japan, was never in a position where it could really assist him in any way. So I think britain did pretty much keep the hope of civilisation alive until Uncle Joe and Uncle Dwight were in a position to really start hitting him hard. 

No, none of this is very much to do with Brexit, but since there doesn't seem much point flogging that horse any more we may as well talk about other things, mightn't we. 

Agree and agree.  But psychologically, I do think Brexit has something to do with it.  It appears people like Steve and potato man are dreaming big again, beyond their means.  Good luck to that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

 

Are you seriously suggesting that if the Americans didn't enter WWII Britain alone would have saved Europe from the Germans?? :lol:  Are you suggesting that Britain kicked back the Germans on the Eastern Front and not the Russians? I'm stumped by so much arrogance and obliviousness.  Why don't you explain to us how Britain did it because our text books seem to indicate something different.

Start off from the phrase ": and we are sick of helping out Europe since Waterloo" and work your way from there.  Let's not be misunderstood or misquote me, the phrase, which you obviously defend and support, was intended to mean "we saved Europe" and not "we assisted Europe".  Again, don't try the high moral ground act, I'm not denying Britain's involvement and importance in WWII.

I think Brexit has gotten to your head.

I will start off from the phrase "and we are sick of Helping out Europe since Waterloo" - twice you have attributed this to me, I let it go once because obviously you got me confused with another poster. But its clear now with continued reference that you are indeed confusing me with another poster. -  So you'll have to take that up with them. :D

But to keep you on the hook, you originally posted we should thank the Japanese who prevented the invasion of the Great Britain. I have asked you to explain exactly what you was referring to when the planned invasion of Britain was Defeated in the Battle of Britain which was a year before Pearl Harbour. seeing how you like text books maybe you should refer to the part where it states Operation Sea lion was postponed indefinitely. Hitler opening up a second front put pay to the idea of another invasion. So your original argument is conjecture. 

Clearly losing that argument now you want to lead me down the path of am i suggesting Britain kicked back the Germans in the East, which is silly talk on your part, its just an attempt by you  expand the post to give yourself some manoeuvring room or wriggle room as i like to call it.

As for you continually pushing the notion i think the UK won the War alone and saved the World - please give me some credit, only a complete moron would push such a idea. after all the clue is in the name a World War. I hardly think one nation can win a world War alone when clearly their are some many other Nations involved.

in answer to your first sentence " Are you seriously suggesting that if the Americans didn't enter WWII Britain alone would have saved Europe from the Germans?? " Have i stated that no i didn't, if you cast your mind back you was making false statements talking about the invasion of Britain. Without all the allies combined effort is what freed Europe,  (like ive said and quoted before and evidently you never read) But remember this when the Fall of France happened it was Britain and her Commonwealth which faced Germany and Italy alone. in what Generall Weygand called "the Battle of France is over" and Churchil used in his famous speech... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. 

So to answer your hypothetical of Germany eventually and successfully invading Great Britain. they couldn't do it at the height of their power in 1940 nothing to suggest they'd succeed at a later date, especially with Britain's growing confidence and strength in the air following the Victory in the Battle of Britain.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

It appears people like Steve and potato man are dreaming big again, beyond their means.  Good luck to that.

What is it with this notion that we're somehow looking to build some kind of empire again? It makes about as much sense as Italians looking to once more make Rome the centre of the universe :rolleyes:

I can only speak for myself, but as an Englishman, yes I am proud of my country's history - obviously not all aspects, as every single nation on this planet has some dark times to answer for. When I look at other nations such as America, Australia, Canada, and others today, the role we played in forming those nations, and the history we all share - both good and bad - I don't yearn for power over them. I'm just glad to see our cousins living much as ourselves, in largely free and democratic societies, and if guilty of anything, maybe take a little pride in aspects such as the role the Magna Carta played in forming the US constitution.

On a mundane level, do you really think your average Brit looks at the world any different than your average Aussie? We care about friends and family, quality of living, keeping our nations free from the madness that is making the headlines these days. About the only way we truly differ is in who we want to win the Ashes ;)

When you look around at your fellow Aussies, do you think most of them have aspirations beyond just bringing their kids up in a safe and free world?

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I will start off from the phrase "and we are sick of Helping out Europe since Waterloo" - twice you have attributed this to me, I let it go once because obviously you got me confused with another poster. But its clear now with continued reference that you are indeed confusing me with another poster. -  So you'll have to take that up with them. :D

But to keep you on the hook, you originally posted we should thank the Japanese who prevented the invasion of the Great Britain. I have asked you to explain exactly what you was referring to when the planned invasion of Britain was Defeated in the Battle of Britain which was a year before Pearl Harbour. seeing how you like text books maybe you should refer to the part where it states Operation Sea lion was postponed indefinitely. Hitler opening up a second front put pay to the idea of another invasion. So your original argument is conjecture. 

Clearly losing that argument now you want to lead me down the path of am i suggesting Britain kicked back the Germans in the East, which is silly talk on your part, its just an attempt by you  expand the post to give yourself some manoeuvring room or wriggle room as i like to call it.

As for you continually pushing the notion i think the UK won the War alone and saved the World - please give me some credit, only a complete moron would push such a idea. after all the clue is in the name a World War. I hardly think one nation can win a world War alone when clearly their are some many other Nations involved.

in answer to your first sentence " Are you seriously suggesting that if the Americans didn't enter WWII Britain alone would have saved Europe from the Germans?? " Have i stated that no i didn't, if you cast your mind back you was making false statements talking about the invasion of Britain. Without all the allies combined effort is what freed Europe,  (like ive said and quoted before and evidently you never read) But remember this when the Fall of France happened it was Britain and her Commonwealth which faced Germany and Italy alone. in what Generall Weygand called "the Battle of France is over" and Churchil used in his famous speech... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. 

So to answer your hypothetical of Germany eventually and successfully invading Great Britain. they couldn't do it at the height of their power in 1940 nothing to suggest they'd succeed at a later date, especially with Britain's growing confidence and strength in the air following the Victory in the Battle of Britain.

 

 

Good try mate.  I'm not losing any argument here because you're the one that entered the scene when I was addressing a post from Spud.  My point with Spud was about that phrase "and we are sick of Helping out Europe since Waterloo".  You came on top of my post giving examples of how Britain won the Battle of Britain and fought on various fronts etc. etc..  There and there you took over from Spud's arrogance, supporting his idea, that Britain saved Europe.  Now I've repeated it many times, Britain did contribute largely to the defeat of the Axis, but that wasn't Spud's way of putting it and that's what you inherited when you took on his role of defending that idea.  So explain to me how I'm confusing you with him and how am I diverting the argument when I'm simply listing examples (i.e Eastern Front) of what he/you believe in when he made the statement, you supported, that Britain saved Europe (intended as on their own!!)? 

Secondly, you think you have me on the hook because I mentioned the Japanese (evident to everybody I was referring to the bombing of Pearl Harbor).  Over several posts I've made it clear what I was alluding to, the entry of the Americans into the scene and how that changed the course of the war.  While you're convinced you have me against the ropes I'm baffled to understand why you keep alluding to it and what you're on about. 

The bombing of Pearl Harbour wasn't meant to be in recognition of the vile act by the Japanese, it was tongue in cheek to suggest it pushed the US into war quicker.  Maybe a bad example considering all the lives lost, but facts are facts and that's what actually happened.  This paragraph wasn't specifically directed towards you but to those that like to throw jibes from the sidelines without addressing my posts directly.

You recognise the notion that one single nation could not have won the war alone and you state it would be moronic to believe so, yet I haven't seen you rebuke Spud's statement and in actual fact, I can see that you gave it a "like".  On top of that it seems to be supported by your last paragraph which is just hypothetical as much as my claim.  But my claim is supported by the fact that the Germans got squashed back by Russians on the Eastern Front and Britain started the offensive against the Germans ONLY with the support of US Infantry and Airborne Divisions together with various Canadian, Polish, Australian, New Zealand Divisions, French resistance etc. on the Western Front.  I'm b*****ed to understand how Britain in the long run would have managed to resist the Germans and save Europe without the help they got but hey, as long as you keep on convincing yourself that's the most important thing.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Good try mate.  I'm not losing any argument here because you're the one that entered the scene when I was addressing a post from Spud.  My point with Spud was about that phrase "and we are sick of Helping out Europe since Waterloo".  You came on top of my post giving examples of how Britain won the Battle of Britain and fought on various fronts etc. etc..  There and there you took over from Spud's arrogance, supporting his idea, that Britain saved Europe.  Now I've repeated it many times, Britain did contribute largely to the defeat of the Axis, but that wasn't Spud's way of putting it and that's what you inherited when you took on his role of defending that idea.  So explain to me how I'm confusing you with him and how am I diverting the argument when I'm simply listing examples (i.e Eastern Front) of what he/you believe in when he made the statement, you supported, that Britain saved Europe (intended as on their own!!)? 

Secondly, you think you have me on the hook because I mentioned the Japanese (evident to everybody I was referring to the bombing of Pearl Harbor).  Over several posts I've made it clear what I was alluding to, the entry of the Americans into the scene and how that changed the course of the war.  While you're convinced you have me against the ropes I'm baffled to understand why you keep alluding to it and what you're on about. 

The bombing of Pearl Harbour wasn't meant to be in recognition of the vile act by the Japanese, it was tongue in cheek to suggest it pushed the US into war quicker.  Maybe a bad example considering all the lives lost, but facts are facts and that's what actually happened.  This paragraph wasn't specifically directed towards you but to those that like to throw jibes from the sidelines without addressing my posts directly.

You recognise the notion that one single nation could not have won the war alone and you state it would be moronic to believe so, yet I haven't seen you rebuke Spud's statement and in actual fact, I can see that you gave it a "like".  On top of that it seems to be supported by your last paragraph which is just hypothetical as much as my claim.  But my claim is supported by the fact that the Germans got squashed back by Russians on the Eastern Front and Britain started the offensive against the Germans ONLY with the support of US Infantry and Airborne Divisions together with various Canadian, Polish, Australian, New Zealand Divisions, French resistance etc. on the Western Front.  I'm b*****ed to understand how Britain in the long run would have managed to resist the Germans and save Europe without the help they got but hey, as long as you keep on convincing yourself that's the most important thing.

 

Black,my Uncle fought at DDay.He died a few years ago.His great uncle died at the Somme.Dont disrepect our effort.!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TopToffee said:

Black,my Uncle fought at DDay.He died a few years ago.His great uncle died at the Somme.Dont disrespect our effort.!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Good try mate.  I'm not losing any argument here because you're the one that entered the scene when I was addressing a post from Spud.  My point with Spud was about that phrase "and we are sick of Helping out Europe since Waterloo".  You came on top of my post giving examples of how Britain won the Battle of Britain and fought on various fronts etc. etc..  There and there you took over from Spud's arrogance, supporting his idea, that Britain saved Europe.  Now I've repeated it many times, Britain did contribute largely to the defeat of the Axis, but that wasn't Spud's way of putting it and that's what you inherited when you took on his role of defending that idea.  So explain to me how I'm confusing you with him and how am I diverting the argument when I'm simply listing examples (i.e Eastern Front) of what he/you believe in when he made the statement, you supported, that Britain saved Europe (intended as on their own!!)? 

Secondly, you think you have me on the hook because I mentioned the Japanese (evident to everybody I was referring to the bombing of Pearl Harbor).  Over several posts I've made it clear what I was alluding to, the entry of the Americans into the scene and how that changed the course of the war.  While you're convinced you have me against the ropes I'm baffled to understand why you keep alluding to it and what you're on about. 

The bombing of Pearl Harbour wasn't meant to be in recognition of the vile act by the Japanese, it was tongue in cheek to suggest it pushed the US into war quicker.  Maybe a bad example considering all the lives lost, but facts are facts and that's what actually happened.  This paragraph wasn't specifically directed towards you but to those that like to throw jibes from the sidelines without addressing my posts directly.

You recognise the notion that one single nation could not have won the war alone and you state it would be moronic to believe so, yet I haven't seen you rebuke Spud's statement and in actual fact, I can see that you gave it a "like".  On top of that it seems to be supported by your last paragraph which is just hypothetical as much as my claim.  But my claim is supported by the fact that the Germans got squashed back by Russians on the Eastern Front and Britain started the offensive against the Germans ONLY with the support of US Infantry and Airborne Divisions together with various Canadian, Polish, Australian, New Zealand Divisions, French resistance etc. on the Western Front.  I'm b*****ed to understand how Britain in the long run would have managed to resist the Germans and save Europe without the help they got but hey, as long as you keep on convincing yourself that's the most important thing.

 

...everyone hear that?  It's the sound of a truck backing up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LV-426 said:

What is it with this notion that we're somehow looking to build some kind of empire again? It makes about as much sense as Italians looking to once more make Rome the centre of the universe :rolleyes:

I can only speak for myself, but as an Englishman, yes I am proud of my country's history - obviously not all aspects, as every single nation on this planet has some dark times to answer for. When I look at other nations such as America, Australia, Canada, and others today, the role we played in forming those nations, and the history we all share - both good and bad - I don't yearn for power over them. I'm just glad to see our cousins living much as ourselves, in largely free and democratic societies, and if guilty of anything, maybe take a little pride in aspects such as the role the Magna Carta played in forming the US constitution.

On a mundane level, do you really think your average Brit looks at the world any different than your average Aussie? We care about friends and family, quality of living, keeping our nations free from the madness that is making the headlines these days. About the only way we truly differ is in who we want to win the Ashes ;)

When you look around at your fellow Aussies, do you think most of them have aspirations beyond just bringing their kids up in a safe and free world?

 

Maybe you might not but it does appear some have a different perspective than you.  Nevertheless, that's not even an issue or THE issue of my post.  Someone can have pride in their nation and ideas of past Grandeur and can splurge about it as much as they want.  Nothing wrong with being parochial and patriotic.  Any intelligent human being knows there won't be a British Empire as was in the past any soon, no matter how parochial and patriotic someone may be.  I just thought the arrogance of the remark was a bit overwhelming. 

Nothing wrong with having a good debate as long as things are kept civil is there? :P  Don't take it serious mate, it's all good pastime.

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.