Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:27 +0000, Walt Davidson
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

nevermore wrote:
Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his
teacher talked about the Constitution.
Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution,
written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown?
Exactly!

I don't think it's so much that; it's more that American history is
just too short to be worth teaching (certainly by European standards).

I think I see your point: America defeats Britain in the Revolutionary
War. America defeats Britain in the War of 1812. America pulls
Britain's fat from the fire in WWI. America pulls Britain's fat from
the fire in WWII.

Post WWII finds the British Empire in eclipse. Six out for twenty-two
overs, Toad-in-a-hole and Bob's your uncle. Is that about it?

Dave K8MN

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:41:44 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

America pulls
Britain's fat from the fire in WWI. America pulls Britain's fat from
the fire in WWII.

Pity nobody pulled your fat from the fire in Vietnam, OM.

And Britain is pretty much the only country foolish enough to try and
pull your fat from the fire in Iraq right now ...

73 de G3NYY

P.S. Thanks for your help in the Falklands. We sorted that one out
quite nicely for ourselves, OM.

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

And thanks for all the money you lot sent to the IRA.....

Walt Davidson wrote:

Pity nobody pulled your fat from the fire in Vietnam, OM.

Don't forget that ten years previously, we had defeated
single-handedly a communist jungle insurgency.

However, there are some countries to which you cannot tender advice,
and so when their turn came, it was all 'search and destroy',
choppers, and defoliants. I still remember the news film of the final
days, with helicopters being shoved over the sides of the ships,
rotors still turning.

Having learned nothing from this, they are proceeding to demonstrate
they are learning nothing from the current, erm, liberation, blessing,
I forget the PC word for it.

How long ago it seems, since "Mission Accomplished" was declared.

from
Aero Spike

Dr B F Jones: "...No-one on my staff had any visibility of large quantities of intelligence which proved conclusively there were weapons of mass destruction..."

"Spike" wrote in message
news
Walt Davidson wrote:

Pity nobody pulled your fat from the fire in Vietnam, OM.

Don't forget that ten years previously, we had defeated
single-handedly a communist jungle insurgency.

However, there are some countries to which you cannot tender advice,
and so when their turn came, it was all 'search and destroy',
choppers, and defoliants. I still remember the news film of the final
days, with helicopters being shoved over the sides of the ships,
rotors still turning.

Having learned nothing from this, they are proceeding to demonstrate
they are learning nothing from the current, erm, liberation, blessing,
I forget the PC word for it.

How long ago it seems, since "Mission Accomplished" was declared.

from
Aero Spike

Dr B F Jones: "...No-one on my staff had any visibility of large quantities
of intelligence which proved conclusively there were weapons of mass
destruction..."
.................

...and of course there are oodles of comments on the record made by Democrats
that concur that Saddam was a real and viable threat.
Who is D. F. Jones, anyway? Do some research and read the comments made by
Kerry, the Clintons, Fat Ted and many, many others.

Your weak argument has been proven false time after time after time....

Dave Heil wrote:

I think I see your point: America defeats Britain in the Revolutionary
War.

Hmmm. There is no doubt that had Britain taken this war seriously it
would have won it.

America defeats Britain in the War of 1812.

Ho Ho! I suppose you'll be telling us next the White House was torched
by aliens?

America pulls
Britain's fat from the fire in WWI.

America came into the war when it was all but won and 3 years after it
started. Its troops played only a minor but crucial role. America saw
the potential for profit and a chance to increase its sphere of
influence for little effort, Britain on the other hand went to war in
defence of its allies.

America pulls Britain's fat from
the fire in WWII.

Once again America enters the war late and only for profit. Britain
entered the war yet again in defence of its Allies. America was the only
country to end the war richer than when it started.

Post WWII finds the British Empire in eclipse.

Indeed. Two world wars cost Britain an Empire.

Six out for twenty-two
overs, Toad-in-a-hole and Bob's your uncle. Is that about it?

No its about the dollar pure and simple. Why don't you go and research
how many wars of aggression America has waged? Name me one time America
has gone to war in defence of its allies please.

And as someone who lives in Northern Ireland I'd like to thank all you
Americans for financing decades of terror in my country, in particular
I'd like to thank the NYPD and the NYFD who openly financed and
supported the IRA. Boy didn't they just love it when it became their
turn to suffer at the hands of murderers?


--
Proud Holder of Old Nick's Deputy First Class Badge

Walt Davidson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:41:44 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

America pulls
Britain's fat from the fire in WWI. America pulls Britain's fat from
the fire in WWII.

Pity nobody pulled your fat from the fire in Vietnam, OM.

Did you find anything untruthful in my statements above? There was
certainly no Britain assisting us in Vietnam. Nobody defeated the
United States militarily in Vietnam.

And Britain is pretty much the only country foolish enough to try and
pull your fat from the fire in Iraq right now ...

The British government is quite rightly involved in that which is in its
own self-interest. Wasn't Britain involved in marking up maps to create
the present day Iraq? It would have been nice if someone in charge had
known what tribal groups lived where, don't you think?

73 de G3NYY

P.S. Thanks for your help in the Falklands. We sorted that one out
quite nicely for ourselves, OM.

You actually *did* receive help in several forms during the "fighting"
in the Falklands.

If Great Britain could not wrest control of those islands from
Argentina, it should have held a going out of business sale.

Dave K8MN

pointyhead wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

I think I see your point: America defeats Britain in the
Revolutionary War.

Hmmm. There is no doubt that had Britain taken this war seriously it
would have won it.

Sure, sure. Your historical revisionism is a needed face-saving measure.

America defeats Britain in the War of 1812.

Ho Ho! I suppose you'll be telling us next the White House was torched
by aliens?

Coventry was fire-bombed. Did you lose WWII? London endured waves of
buzz bomb and V2 attacks. Did you lose WWII?

The United States defeated Britain for the second time in the War of
1812. I'm sure that you can come up with a scenario in which Britain
could have won the war if only it had taken it seriously.

America pulls Britain's fat from the fire in WWI.

America came into the war when it was all but won and 3 years after it
started. Its troops played only a minor but crucial role. America saw
the potential for profit and a chance to increase its sphere of
influence for little effort, Britain on the other hand went to war in
defence of its allies.

All but won? Little had changed in the three years of WWI. It was
largely back and forth, back and forth in the same muddy fields.

America pulls Britain's fat from the fire in WWII.

Once again America enters the war late and only for profit.

There's more historical revisionism. That Marshall Plan was a big money
making scheme, was it?

Britain
entered the war yet again in defence of its Allies. America was the only
country to end the war richer than when it started.

....and I see that it chafes you. How rich you'd have been under German
domination!

Post WWII finds the British Empire in eclipse.

Indeed. Two world wars cost Britain an Empire.

I thought I'd pointed that out.

Six out for twenty-two overs, Toad-in-a-hole and Bob's your uncle. Is
that about it?

No its about the dollar pure and simple. Why don't you go and research
how many wars of aggression America has waged? Name me one time America
has gone to war in defence of its allies please.

I've already done so.

And as someone who lives in Northern Ireland I'd like to thank all you
Americans for financing decades of terror in my country, in particular
I'd like to thank the NYPD and the NYFD who openly financed and
supported the IRA.

I'll bet that if you bothered to research it, you'd find only a tiny
percentage of Americans who act as professional Irishmen donating to
that cause. I personally don't know anyone who provided even a dime.

Boy didn't they just love it when it became their
turn to suffer at the hands of murderers?

C'mon. You've got a bunch of grown men who wear bowler hats and their
Sunday best, marching in celebration of battles fought eons ago. Get
over it. You were fighting each other. That isn't what took place here
in 2001.

Dave K8MN

Walt Davidson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:28:31 GMT, pointyhead
wrote:

America came into the war when it was all but won and 3 years after it
started. Its troops played only a minor but crucial role.

Had it not been for the fact that the Americans were caught with their
pants down at Pearl Harbor, they would never have entered the war at
all.

This has always been an American characteristic. More recently, it
was only after they were caught with their pants down in New York that
they decided to vent their indignation by launching an attack on the
first convenient Middle Eastern country that came to mind.

Does the phrase "Peace In Our Time" ring any bells?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

Hmmm. There is no doubt that had Britain taken this war seriously it
would have won it.


Sure, sure. Your historical revisionism is a needed face-saving measure.

Ah yes of course, you'll be telling us next that America wasn't defeated
in Vietnam...oh wait. Whats next? Afghanistan attacked America? Weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq? No torture in Guantanamo?

America defeats Britain in the War of 1812.

Ho Ho! I suppose you'll be telling us next the White House was torched
by aliens?

Coventry was fire-bombed. Did you lose WWII? London endured waves of
buzz bomb and V2 attacks. Did you lose WWII?

The White House was torched after America declared war on Britain which
was already involved in a war against another dictator. Did you win the
war? No. America was suicide bombed. Have you won the "War against
terror"? NO!

The United States defeated Britain for the second time in the War of
1812.

Of course I can see now where you're coming from. America in yet another
war of aggression attacks Great Britain when it thinks its attention is
elsewhere and its forces weakened. Even though playing from home Crown
Forces successfully repulse the invasion of Canada and go on to burn the
nations capital. Having learned from this lesson America decides it is
safer to have the UK as an ally rather and an enemy and in future limits
its aggression to wars that are already mostly won or the invasion of
little 3rd world countries.

I'm sure that you can come up with a scenario in which Britain
could have won the war if only it had taken it seriously.

Yes I can see how an American would equate the buring of his capital and
seat of power along with several repulsed invasions of Canada as a victory.
Only a typical yank could equate the ending of the war as a victory.

America pulls Britain's fat from the fire in WWI.


America came into the war when it was all but won and 3 years after it
started. Its troops played only a minor but crucial role. America saw
the potential for profit and a chance to increase its sphere of
influence for little effort, Britain on the other hand went to war in
defence of its allies.


All but won? Little had changed in the three years of WWI. It was
largely back and forth, back and forth in the same muddy fields.

When the war ended the best army in the field was unquestionably the
British and it was largely the British who made the sweeping gains of
the last days. The Americans did bugger all even when the war was in
danger of being lost early in 1918.

America pulls Britain's fat from the fire in WWII.


Once again America enters the war late and only for profit.


There's more historical revisionism. That Marshall Plan was a big money
making scheme, was it?

Lease lend certainly was.

Britain entered the war yet again in defence of its Allies. America
was the only country to end the war richer than when it started.


...and I see that it chafes you. How rich you'd have been under German
domination!

What German domination? Unaided by America the UK thwarted for all time
Hitlers plans to invade.

Post WWII finds the British Empire in eclipse.


Indeed. Two world wars cost Britain an Empire.


I thought I'd pointed that out.

No you didn't. I pointed out that it took two world wars of selfless
British action to end the Empire.

Six out for twenty-two overs, Toad-in-a-hole and Bob's your uncle.
Is that about it?


No its about the dollar pure and simple. Why don't you go and research
how many wars of aggression America has waged? Name me one time
America has gone to war in defence of its allies please.


I've already done so.

No you haven't because if you had there'd by no way you'd label the
American War of 1812 a victory.

And as someone who lives in Northern Ireland I'd like to thank all you
Americans for financing decades of terror in my country, in particular
I'd like to thank the NYPD and the NYFD who openly financed and
supported the IRA.


I'll bet that if you bothered to research it, you'd find only a tiny
percentage of Americans who act as professional Irishmen donating to
that cause.

What are you saying? America is a ******* nation? That because of the
size of the Irish American vote successive Presidents did nothing to
stop it?

I personally don't know anyone who provided even a dime.

What you personally know or don't know does not change the facts. I'd be
willing to bet you don't know anyone who fought in the aggressive war of
1812 yet here you're clearly distorting the facts!

Boy didn't they just love it when it became their turn to suffer at
the hands of murderers?


C'mon. You've got a bunch of grown men who wear bowler hats and their
Sunday best, marching in celebration of battles fought eons ago. Get
over it. You were fighting each other. That isn't what took place here
in 2001.

Isn't this thread about battles that were fought eons ago in which you
have tried to distort history?! What we had here was a bunch of
murdering *******s who would not accept the democratic will of the
majority open expressed in free and fair elections who were funded and
armed by loony Americans and loony dictators. You should also remember
that the freedoms you and I enjoy would not exist but for the victories
celebrated by these marches.

--
Proud Holder of Old Nick's Deputy First Class Badge

Walt Davidson wrote:

This has always been an American characteristic. More recently, it
was only after they were caught with their pants down in New York that
they decided to vent their indignation by launching an attack on the
first convenient Middle Eastern country that came to mind.


Dubya must have had help. It's a certainty he couldn't have
named a middle eastern country unaided. Maybe Bonzo is still
working as a presidential advisor? BTW it is not true that
Dubya is Bonzo's half-brother, he just walks that way for
other reasons.

vy 73

Andy, M1EBV