quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik awww british hippies are angry http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...sh_britain_dc_1 I say STFU considering America gave more their freedom than they did 60 years ago.

Whilst the war was on I was in London, and I walked past this girl with a banner shouting stuff, the war was on and British soldiers were getting killed so I said to her lose that fucking banner or I'll shove it up your fucking arse. That might sound harsh but whilst a wars on whether you agree or disagree you have to support the troops and think of the people who have lost their lives.

And your last line that post, your refering to WW2 right? And your saying the Americans gave British people their freedom? If your saying what I think you are I suggest you stop speaking out of your fucking arse lad, the British fought for their OWN freedom! British Freedom was won in the Battle of Britain which was the start of a massive Blitzkreig, but it went tits up in the first phase contolling British airspace (The Battle of Britain) and after a serious defeat the Germans decided not to try and invade the UK.

But I'm not saying America didn't help the UK they shipped over vital supplies etc, to keep the country running. I think anyone who wants to slag Britain off or the efforts in WW2 should shut the fuck up, realise this shitty little Island held out, whilst all the lands around it were occupied by the Nazis.

I might of read what you said wrongly, however do you think it was only America who won WW2? Do you think of people from other countries who gave their lives so you can be free?

See when people talk about WW2 it really pisses me off and I can take things the wrong way sometimes, but its because my grandad won lots of medals including the Miltary Medal, King Georges Cross (or whatever its called) and wasted 6 years of his life fighting for not only his freedom but everyone elses.

___________________

It really does not matter what George W. Bush, says anymore, Many Europeans have put on their own blinders, as they so often like to remind Americans of with Israel especially. If Bush was to call for the ratification of Kyoto tomorrow, they would probably protest that it was too late to do it, if he was to pull out of Iraq they would say what a disaster to run away from the Iraquis, all I have heard from many people is blatant Bush bashing, which serves 0 purpose. If half the efforts were devoted to also criticizing dictators in Asia, the Middle East or certainly Africa, maybe I could see their purpose. Do not for one second get me wrong I am pissed as hell with the events in Iraq, with no weapons found, lives lost and continued instability, but no one can question that the time has come to move on and rebuild the f-ing country. If genuine concern lies with the Iraquis, rather than with anti-American sentiments, the faster Iraq is rebuilt, the faster the U.S. can get the hell out of there. I just hope that many drunken yobs won't take to the streets of London and wreck the beautiful streets, is G.W. Bush really worth that. Protest peacefully, make your point in number of demonstrators and go on back with life.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik ."up to 100,000 protesters vowing to take to the streets" i hope that posting your sat percentage score on the internet gives you a nice warm bundle of self worth. obviously you had trouble understanding that by hippies I meant protesters. disagreeing about something is one thing, marching for your beliefs makes you a hippy

your a dumbass......

___________________

quote:

I might of read what you said wrongly, however do you think it was only America who won WW2? Do you think of people from other countries who gave their lives so you can be free?

i thought the war started when tom hanks and the americans took the beach?????

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan And your last line that post, your refering to WW2 right? And your saying the Americans gave British people their freedom? If your saying what I think you are I suggest you stop speaking out of your fucking arse lad, the British fought for their OWN freedom!

all I meant is that more American troops were killed in combat.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i thought the war started when tom hanks and the americans took the beach?????

Nah, the war started when the Germans committed to the western front in 1940 ... right?

quote:

all I meant is that more American troops were killed in combat.

Please ... people should stop the holier than thou mentality when it comes to ww2 *cough ... mjuzik ... cough* . I've spent godless amounts of time trouncing arguments undermining US committments/acheivements in that war and I could spend the same amount of time outlining other countries' efforts/acheivements that were also critical. It's the one war I've studied the most so I'm more than willing to argue any point about it.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's the one war I've studied the most so I'm more than willing to argue any point about it.

unless you can argue that the British lost more ppl to combat it doesnt really matter, now does it?

I'm not saying that the war couldn't have been won w/o their help, but in the most real of measures (human life), America gave more than Britain (and A LOT less than the red army).

on a sidenote, it's interesting how much things turned around the week Germany declared war on the US, almost spooky really.

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik unless you can argue that the British lost more ppl to combat it doesnt really matter, now does it? I'm not saying that the war couldn't have been won w/o their help, but in the most real of measures (human life), America gave more than Britain (and A LOT less than the red army).

Wars are not won or lost on the basis of the number of lives you sacrifice in order to acheive your goals ... one would think that that lesson was learned in the battle of Verdun in 1916. In addition to the importance of strategic victories, you should also take into account the percentage of the total population lost when it comes to casualties.

quote:

on a sidenote, it's interesting how much things turned around the week Germany declared war on the US, almost spooky really.

What? The battle of Moscow? Technically the week before ... but it was merely one decisive battle out of many on the eastern front. Nothing spooky that I can tell.

___________________
Retro ...

there's a good doco floating around on the lancaster dam busters, some analysts believe that was a major epoch in ww2

quote:

Monday, Nov. 17, 2003 The George And Tony Show Could Get Wild Blair is looking forward to Bush's visit to Britain next week. So are the protesters By J.F.O. MCALLISTER It seemed like a great idea at the time. Two summers ago, Elizabeth II decided to invite Bush 43 for a formal state visit, the first for an American President since Woodrow Wilson called on her grandfather in 1918. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government was behind the idea, confident that lots of royal folderol — a white-tie dinner, a ride by the Queen and the President in a horse-drawn carriage — would put a big, emotional exclamation point on the transatlantic bonds Blair has nourished. But now, a week before Air Force One is scheduled to touch down, Bush's journey is starting to look like a cross between The Perfect Storm and Chevy Chase Goes to London. All police vacations have been canceled so that some 4,000 officers can contain anti-Bush protests organized by the Stop the War Coalition, which mobilized a record 1 million marchers for a demonstration last February. The group's website sports an unflattering photo of Bush, complete with instructions on how to photocopy it at 141% magnification to produce the right dimensions for an effigy. Plans call for toppling a mesh statue of Bush, Saddam style, in Trafalgar Square on Nov. 20. The President will be kept as far away from protesters as the Secret Service can manage — he won't join the Queen for her carriage ride after all — but as a U.S. official says, "There's a lot of fear of surprises." Because Blair is so articulate and stalwart, Bush has always got a boost from the Prime Minister's visits to the U.S. But Bush's reciprocal gesture can only hurt Blair. The PM's approval ratings have slumped, largely because of his decision to stand with Bush on Iraq. There aren't any weapons of mass destruction to vindicate Blair's key argument that Saddam Hussein was furiously producing them. Constant strife and death in Iraq are making the British public uneasy about Bush's competence and fearful that Britain's nearly 10,000 troops in Iraq will be killed in increasing numbers. (Twenty-three have died since Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1.) In a recent MORI poll of British adults, half the respondents said they wanted Blair to resign right away. It's no wonder he has been straining to downplay Iraq in favor of domestic issues. The strategy has been helped by the fact that the British media have lately been focusing on upheavals in the Conservative Party, a lurid child murder and, last week, the strange tale of Prince Charles' denial — without disclosing the original allegation because a court injunction prohibits that — of a racy claim about him by a former aide with a history of alcoholism. Never mind: next week all of Fleet Street will be awash with coverage of the person a U.S. diplomat ruefully dubbed "the toxic Texan," whose handling of international affairs is panned by two-thirds of Brits. White House officials know their boss is making life awkward for his First Friend. "Maybe they'll keep the lights off and pretend they're not home," quips a Bush aide. On the contrary, Blair's solution to his p.r. problem is to offer a full-throated advocacy of close U.S.-British ties. Far from keeping Bush under wraps for fear of gaffes, Blair is encouraging him to grant interviews with lots of local media. A trip to Blair's home constituency in the northeast is planned to showcase more of the President. "Anyone who thinks the Prime Minister is going to be apologetic about his relationship with Bush and the U.S. totally misunderstands his view of them — both personal and strategic," says a Blair aide. But it's going to be a nerve-racking three days. "It's all thin ice," says a Foreign Office official. One element of unpredictability: Bush hates — really hates — the fuss and formality in which state visits are steeped. The last time he dined with the Queen — in 1992 at his father's White House, wearing cowboy boots emblazoned with GOD SAVE THE QUEEN — he asked if she had any black sheep in her family. "Don't answer that!" his mother Barbara interjected, trying to avoid embarrassment. This time he's the President, the man in charge. Whatever Bush does, Blair will have to live with it. With reporting by John F. Dickerson/Washington and Helen Gibson/London

-- Muzik or however you spell it. What have you say about this. 50% of the UK population disaprove Blair because of paritipation of the war. 1,000,000 in February for demonstrations against war is pretty high for such a country. Blair is smarter then Bush and I tend to agree more with Blair then Bush.. even though Im still against he's ideology, but he seems it seen more right then what Bush speaks.. and still, thats how high he's disaproval is.. if it was Bush, I assure you that 100% of brits would want him kicked off. Another thing, as mentioned before, people in Britain are more educated about the situation... not like here that a huge percentage of people ( forgot the percentage ).. thought that Saddam was associated with the 9/11 ( that same percentage was obvious to support the war with Iraq for that misunderstood reason ). The majority has been against Bush's led war, and the participation of Britain in it. Funny though in this article, when Bush asked Queen Elizabeth if they had any black sheep, and his mother shut him up lol.. aahh Bushes.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What? The battle of Moscow? Technically the week before ... but it was merely one decisive battle out of many on the eastern front. Nothing spooky that I can tell.

I thought you said you studied this war??

A few things happened. Germany declared on 11 December, four days after Pearl Harbor, three days after the US & UK declared on Japan.

A few days before that, Moscow was won.

What is more interesting, however, is that Hitler (not exactly a great military mind) took control of his armed forces on the 19 December. Nearly all WWII historians view this point in History as the real turn in the war. IMO, he still could have won if he had a little luck and A LOT less ego (Stalingrad, among other things).

These aren't even all the things that happened. But of course you know everything RIGHT?? you're TA's historian??