Screw Tony Blair And War on Terror

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And, oh, aren't you glad America didn't take this attitude in the 1940's? Hell, London was pretty much bombed into the ground *with* our help. Without it, that little channel between you and Continental Europe would now be named something with many more consonants in it, I'm sure.

Actually the blitz was over months before the US joined the war. The last bombs fell on London in May 1941.

There is a trailer running on TV here at the moment for the film Pearl Harbor. The character is screaming down the phone during the Japanese attack: 'Don't you understand, WWII has just started' It's starting to grate on me! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Britain would certainly have lost the war without US intervention but it is highly debatable as to whether we would have been invaded. Churchill was prepared to sue for peace, giving up colonies and even giving the Royal Navy Fleet to the Germans. Invading from France (Operation Sealion) would have been very difficult because of the presence of the Royal Navy.

Nation States act in the best interests of themselves, that's only natural. The US involvement in WWII, whilst vital, was not totally altruistic. A dominant Germany may not have been able to threaten the US physically but ecomically they could have.

"In one of his famous speeches Churchill asked America 'Give us the tools and we will finish the job'. But America wouldn't 'give' anything without payment. After two years of war, Roosevelt had drained Britain dry, stripping her of all her assets in the USA, including real estate and property. The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States. To make sure that Roosevelt got his money, he dispatched the American cruiser, 'Louisville ' to the South African naval base of Simonstown to pick up forty two million Pounds worth of British gold, Britain's last negotiable asset, to help pay for American guns and ammunition!. Not content with stripping Britain of her gold and assets, in return for 50 old destroyers, he demanded that Britain transfer all her scientific and technological secrets to the USA. Also, he demanded leases on the islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda for the setting up of American military and naval bases in case Britain should fall. (Of the 50 lend lease destroyers supplied to Britain, 9 were lost in WW11)"

Lord Beaverbrook was later to exclaim 'The Japanese are our relentless enemies, and the Americans our un-relenting creditors'.

On the other hand in May, 1940 the US Ambassador to London, Joseph Kennedy, urged the 4,000 or so Americans living in Britain to pack up and go home. Over seventy responded to this plea by joining the British Home Guard. Called the 1st.American Squadron of the Home Guard, it was led by General Wade H. Heyes. Kennedy was hostile to the whole idea, fearing that all would be shot as 'francs-tireurs' when the Germans occupied London.

BTW - Northern Ireland is definitely NOT England! It is part of the United Kingdom.

[Timber Loftis]

Agreed Morguerat. You absolutely MUST go to the UN if you want to make war in the modern era. It's not just asking for help, it's getting the world's stamp of approval. You are much more criticized for going to the UN than not doing so - as independent war actions are viewed very unfavorably.

As always, the US is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Everyone hates the US's power and bullying of other countries, then cries to the US when it needs a world policeman. I'm over it. So are most other Americans.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks for the historical info, Donut. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

BTW, I saw a great episode on the History Channel detailing the Castle (I forget the name) on the channel that England dug miles of tunnels under and would have been the first stronghold necessary to take in the event of a war. Totally cool.

Originally posted by Grungi: u missed a major point it was ONLY one half of britain close to starving due to the support of the war effort and rationing worked well, there was plenty of food etc and things could have continued as they were for a fair while. Your history texts and mine say different things on this issue. All the books I have on the war that address Britains plight in the early war show that it was very close to collapse. as for nukes? do YOUR history, they hadnt yet been tested, and do you honestly think the threat of nukes stopped madmen like hitler? as if. Plus if england had of fallen easily or capitulated in 1939 you'd have had 6 years before nukes of germany building up a fleet to go invade, so you think what would have happened? 6 years of armed buildup with the whole of europe as their oyster? you'd be speaking german BUT for us if you want that kind of argument, my argument is that england bore the brunt and did the hardwork to begin with and america helped when it suited them, but at least they helped and for that im grateful but i do not apprciate the retarded attitude that america singlehandedly won the war, thats bullshit. "Bore the brunt", "did the hard work"...as I recall you got your butts handed to you and were kicked off the continent. Then all you did was sit there and take it as germany bombed the shite out of your air bases to the point that you almost lost an effective airforce. Not that there was anything that really could have changed those events, except for Chamberlains waffeling. I think the Polish, Checks, French and other mainland people bore the true brunt of all that. Germany had the superior tactics and leadership in the beginning of the war. Not much you can look back at and chage. As for the nukes, I know my history [img]smile.gif[/img] I know they came late, but I also know that it would have taken more than a year possibly 5 for germany to consolidate its winnings in europe and to construct an invasion fleet with which to attackthe US, not to mention Im betting that a fair portion of the British fleet would most likely have defected to the US (which still had a decent fleet in the atlantic) had Britain gone down. We can go round and round about this, and there is no way for either of us to win [img]smile.gif[/img] but it is fun to speculate. Oh and I never said that the US singlehandedly won the war im not saying america didnt help nor that i dont appreciate that help, i do NOT appreciate the arrogant attitude that your the biggest and the best and did everything because thats simply not true, your displaying that arrogant attitude yet again here, thanks for proving my point. You see why the world hates america? me personally i got plenty of american friends and been there twice, i like the place, but they are severely let down by a huge majority of knowledgeless people who make the world a worse place for everyone else, mainly as per usual the politicians (in any country admittedly) Biggest and best....well technically from an industriel point of view we were, from a material point of view ...we were from a sheer numbers standpoint....we were (except for the soviets which had ridiculoous numbers of men and tanks). As for me displaying an arrogant attitude..well I have some good company then [img]smile.gif[/img] I do recall on guy named Montgomery who had an enourmous ego [img]smile.gif[/img] Actually though I do not think Im being arogant, Im acknowledging historical facts. Sorry if some of them are hard to hear. btw battle of britain we had a massive win ratio against a superior enemy, with superior fighters, we did damn well and yes it came close but the fact is it didnt get there, if hitler had of invaded when originally intended after beating france we'd have been in severe problems and so would the rest of the world, america had japan on one side and germany on the other, are you really so arrogant that you think america would have survived? im a realist neither one way or the other, i know you'd have been in problems, and i know we would have too, the fact is a JOINT partnership saved the day so if we cant leave it at plusses and negatives dont say anything at all, america and england kicked nazi scum from this planet and we did it TOGETHER which is the way it should be, but dont let me hear any kinda crap saying otherwise. England saved the day as well in the first place, as did anzac forces and everyone else involved. What about the french resistance and the invaluable intelligence from them that made D-Day a success. I never once said anything derogatory about he RAF's efforts, but the fact is, as valient as it was, they were loosing. They could not afford to replace the losses that they were sustaining and had that little "accidental" bombing of civilians not been comitted by the RAF it is likely Hitler would not have become enraged and ordered the focus of the air raids off the air bases and onto civilian cities. It isn't arrogance on my part that assumes that America would still stand after Britain went down, there are quite a number of treatises on the issue and all that I have seen show that the US would have made peace with Germany and still had to nuke Japan. The fact is, the British people did not fold, they hung on and with American aid weathered their losses and we went on together to win the war. Don't let the fact that Britain needed the supplies America sent to survive turn you to calling americans arrogant to say the US would have survived if Britain went down. The US most likely would have survived and had a peace with the victor in europe. and wtc i dont know any of the figures but northern ireland is england so your looking at thousands if not more yes, and who cares about the skyline? compared to lives a building is nothing. It all has to do with impact. a few here and a few there over decades is less traumatizing than 3000 all at once and a national land mark of achievement. Its not about what is "worse" its about which has a bigger immediate impact. im chastisting america for not minding their own buisness because they do it in THEIR interests and not the rest of the world as you'd have us believe, if you did it as part of a admittedly utopian world society then id have no problem with it as i honestly believe if a dictator is mistreating his people in a country across the world that it IS our business to interfere with that and put a stop to it. Well DuH! Whose interest should they do it in? As for selfless acts of charity, the US does in fact do QUITE a lot world wide so theres no issue there to debate. Im not a big fan of socialism and or communism so self interest is a good thing in my book. btw i dont hate america or americans what i hate about america is this arrogant attitude that is displayed continually in forums across the internet that your the best because you have the strongest armed forces etc, were ALL human were ALL equal, stop being so elitist to those who are like that. LLAO so you are angry because a bunch of immature internet children are pompous? Come on that is hardly a basis for which to condemn a whole country On the other hand, there is something to be said for being a citizen of the most powerful nation on the planet. We are not all equal either. that is a utopian dream, but not a truth in reality. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging superiority where it truley exists. Elitist..is often a term bandied about by people who have an inferiority complex. blair really is a slimey toerag and america only sees his good points because as i say the media only shows him in that light across the pond, but to be fair to the man at least hes human and makes human descisions hes not a mad dictator hes just another self serving politician. So if he is so very damnd awful why do you all not just rise up and oust the bugger? Why do your other leaders not put him down? Again it comes back to, I think...that it is just your opinion of him and not a universal truth. But you are quite right I don't really know anything about him, I really don't folow British politics. I just have a hard time believing the "horror" stories some people tell about him. oh btw im not a conservative [img]tongue.gif[/img] i support no political parties as im under the strong opinion that almost all politicians and the systems they vote in are flawed and make all of them pretty much the same, i believe in simple things in life mainly that mutual respect is one of the most important things you can find, not much to ask of people either. Conservative is not a political party. It is a philosophy of life...you present many strong conservative values [img]smile.gif[/img] it isn't a slight or insult ya know. as for religion thats just a word to describe a faith and im not picking on any, rather on all, i think all religion is based generally on the same precepts anyway and its not for me BUT i think religion itself does good things but the people who follow it rarely get it right and of course its hard because were only human and to ask for perfection (afterlife normally) from humans is an impossiblity so to even try and attain which most religions do is asking alot, but religion has caused hurt and suffering the world over, organised religion i have a problem with, IMO religion is a private thing, sharing it is good only if other people are receptive to it, everyone needs something to believe in so cant argue with that i spose, just not for me at all as i can pick so many holes in religious arguments anytime someone tries to convert me that they end up wondering if their religion is right [img]tongue.gif[/img] I'm not really agruing against you on this, I just think (as in it is just my opinion) that you are far to harsh in your judgement when you say "people rarely get it right" There are millions of people wearing clothes, eating food, and receiving medical treatment because many people did get it right. And not just in the US. and i hope noone would pick on me im trying to state my views clearly without offending anyone as for me i like PEOPLE individually on their own individual merits, but i personally get offended when someone says to me america "bailed us out in world war2" or "but for america you limeys would have been speaking german" i just dont want to hear that, my country was the buffer between the nazis and the free world and you dont see brits going around saying that to people constantly so why do americans (on every forum on the internet practically same arguments rages) have to bring it up in conversations like this? Lets act like the allies we are, we are the most civilised countries in the world (not excluding anyone but i dont want to list others like japan etc who are up with us [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) so lets work together and make the world a better place. Personaly I wouldnt call a British citizen a limey, sounds too derogatory to my ears. I admire the efforts and accomplishments of the British in the War. I just think that you are pretty sensitive on the issue and let it colour your judgement and assessment. Again, I am not picking on you [img]smile.gif[/img] I just thought you had clear points of view that could lead to an insteresting debate, unlike some other elements that float around here now and then. When I get back from Holiday maybe Ill start diging out my WWII texts (I have hundreds) and find some relevant stats to our discussion. btw you say im judgemental, but when someone, for example my mother who is a devout christian comes to me forcing me to go to church (when i was younger) and forcing her views upon me, i read the bible cover to cover and IMO thats not what christiniaty is about yet in history thats always the way and i got the same as school again christianity being forced upon us which goes against the fundamentals of the religion, so i believe i can judge that as bad by their own rules so yes im judgemental but as im judging using the rules created by the people im judging i think its fair enough. Im not judging them by my own standards as i keep those seperate. Technically Christianity is not so much about the bible cover to cover, it is more New Testement than old. as for your mother, it is her responsibility to try and instill her set of values in you as a child. (when you were) and when you are older, you should humor her, because she loves you and is trying to do what she believes is right. You don't have to accept her faith as your own, but you should at least out of respect for her, try not to antagonize her over the issue. and religious tennants are based on morals... before religion there were morals so religions are based on morals not the other way round ie cavemen knew it was wrong to kill the people in their clan, not for any good reason its just wrong, so morals were born. (and dont go into one about how they were doing it for selfpreservation etc, obviously they were but morals began from things like this and from then came religion) Can you show me any documented proof of morals before religion? I believe that religion predates the written word. And on face values it looks to me like morals are derived from the religious precepts of good and evil, right and wrong. You might say that Ethics predate religion but again, Im not sure that ethics and morals are not the same. Ther e is evidence that cavemen had religious beliefs but since they didn't write, there is no way to ascertain what their views on Morality were and what morality meant to them. sorry i replied so haphazardly to everyones posts, did the best i could.

Not a problem here [img]smile.gif[/img] I think you hit most of the major issues [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gilgamesh]

Ive changed my mind on war...
I took a class today, it has inspired me to kill! Im going to join the army in 1 years time and become a pro sniper. I am going to kill all terrorists!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] ill stop what ever they are up to. Me and my army crews [img]tongue.gif[/img] Maybe ill see you on the battle field some day

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I wish I had NEVER said ANYTHING about WWII. My point was simple: allies are good to have. US/UK have been great allies for a long time, and help each other a lot. So much so that the UK gets lots of flame from other EU members on many issues. People and countries cannot agree on every single issue, however - and thank goodness for varying opinions.

Tony Blair, as far as I can tell, has pretty good approval rating in UK, though I have not checked the latest stats. Wasn't he part of a mini labor party coup that was pretty popular? Mayhap I'm thinking of London's mayor instead.

MagiK, we've gone round about this before, so I don't wanna rehash it all over again, and we could just post links to very long-winded religion threads. Nevertheless, as an atheist with a high degree of morals - most of which are dictated by Plato, Hegel, and Nietszche rather than my Baptist upbringing - I must reiterate that I think that morals exist without religion. I think the golden rule would develop in society as a macro self-preservation tool, with or without stone tablets being handed down to Moses. I think the numerous consistencies among religions point to inherent universal truths that exist outside of and before the religion. Since people create religion (even if you believe god really spoke to folks, you must still admit most of the organization and writing is/was done by people) I think truths that already exist get put into religion. MHO.

[Gilgamesh]

Hmmm, This seems to be quite the conversation ive started.... But im still thinking... I aint worried bout War any more, I still think tony blair is a fool though. A lying fool...

He cant keep his promises, i really dont aproove oh him...

[Gilgamesh]

Im going to live in America when im older, its sooo cool over there compared to here in Sunny *Cough* England.

Plus there are better jobs over there, and i dont have to listen to Tony blaire babble on any more [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, we have much better babblers in gov. here. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh: Im going to live in America when im older, its sooo cool over there compared to here in Sunny *Cough* England. Plus there are better jobs over there, and i dont have to listen to Tony blaire babble on any more [img]tongue.gif[/img]

True, but than you have to deal with Jay Leno every day.