Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:Obama sent back the Churchill bust from the oval office.



I loved that his comments about Israel's borders have pretty much been decried by congress, after they gave a standing ovation to Mr. Netanyahu.

I wish they would drop this special relationship BS, it clearly doesn't exist any more. Hello, Falklands!

Please watch the language ! Reds8n

Thought if I put 'cake' at the end it would make it ok.

I re-submit this: Obama is an arrogant so-and-so!

Based on what?

Returning the Churchill bust that was gifted to the Bush Jnr administration from the Blair regime? You know Obama's grandfather was tortured under policies enacted by Churchill?

Israel should turn over that land, it invaded and stole it.

Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.

QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"

alarmingrick wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.

QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"

Oxygen isn't flammable otherwise if you lit a match much of the atmosphere would be covered in fire.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Israel should turn over that land, it invaded and stole it.

That is generally how countries come into being and grow. One group rises up and takes land belonging to someone else as their own. Or a group is attacked, beats up the attackers and takes some of their land during the fighting.

Cheesecat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.

QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"

Oxygen isn't flammable otherwise if you lit a match much of the atmosphere would be covered in fire.

Okay, horrid example, but you do get the point i hope.

Saying oxygen isn't flammable is misleading. Oxygen is the main reason that things catch on fire in the first place, as without it, the overwhelming majority of combustion reactions-- IE, fire-- wouldn't work.

Frazzled wrote:
Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

Glad to hear you were outraged at Bush Senior's attacking Saddam then, when he took Kuwait...

Modern, recent conquest is met with dismay. Most nations now try to operate with the notion that borders are now set and the 'days of conquest' are behind modern 'civilised' countries.

Also, see Scottish devolution, peace talks in Ulster and the Northern Ireland coalition government and the Welsh National Assembly...

I'll agree there's plenty of hypocrisy here, also a lack of knowledge on topic seems to be occurring from certain posters...

Glad to hear you were outraged at Bush Senior's attacking Saddam then, when he took Kuwait...
***You mean liberated Kuwait from its invaders? er...thats blindingly not appropriate. Further, the US gave up the territory which is stage two in why this example proves my point, not yours. Moving to the US has addled your argument skills. Soon you'll lose that fine accent and start talking like an American...

Modern, recent conquest is met with dismay. Most nations now try to operate with the notion that borders are now set and the 'days of conquest' are behind modern 'civilised' countries.
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.

Also, see Scottish devolution, peace talks in Ulster and the Northern Ireland coalition government and the Welsh National Assembly...
***They are still part of Great Britain. Lancaster is still under the same roof as York. All were conquered by oe power or another.

I'll agree there's plenty of hypocrisy here, also a lack of knowledge on topic seems to be occurring from certain posters...
***Indeed.

Obama represents America, the Statue was given to Bush after 9/11 as a sign of British/American solidarity. Harking back to a time where America and Britain (obviously others too) stood side by side in difficult times. Him returning it for personal reasons is arrogant. 'I don't like Winston Churchill. Send it back.' As president he should be above such things.

Henners91 wrote:

Albatross wrote:The point is that modern day Brits are overwhelmingly descended from the same genetic stock as Boudicca would have been...

...But then we've been through this before on here, many times.

I had read that the Saxons were behind one of the most complete genetic assimilations in history; you are unlikely to find too much Celtic blood kicking about within your stock Englishman?

Normans mostly kept to their own stock and even when they did become naturalised, they assumed the role of the upper classes.

Yeah but Wales, Scotland and Ireland kinda made a social counter invasion some years later...
It is easy to find people with celtic blood anywhere in Britain.

Good! You can teach us manners, and we can teach you freedom!

As to Israel "invading and stealing" - really? Stealing it from whom? Criminal Syrian exiles put there and kept there by their muslim "brothers" as a ready source of martyrs and a political football? Does a nation lack the right to seize territory being used as a staging ground to attack its citizens? Those territories have been returned and retaken endlessly - because the people living there can't be trusted to live there in peace. They elected a terrorist organization as their government.

From past events the American version of freedom is somewhat subjective... IMO anyway.

Frazzled wrote:
***You mean liberated Kuwait from its invaders? er...thats blindingly not appropriate. Further, the US gave up the territory which is stage two in why this example proves my point, not yours. Moving to the US has addled your argument skills. Soon you'll lose that fine accent and start talking like an American...

Why should the US have involved it's self in the natural assimilation of a weaker state by a stronger one? Why take on Iraq when you've just justified Israel's conquest of neighbouring territory?

Frazzled wrote:
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.

I was referring to the last 30 years or so. The India Pakistan conflicts are climbing down and have been for a long time now. Tibet was taken in the 50s, before the Israeli border expansion.
Britain does not sabre rattle about the Falklands, Argentinian government or would bes sabre rattle about the Malvinas and then remember what happened last time they tried.

Frazzled wrote:

***They are still part of Great Britain. Lancaster is still under the same roof as York. All were conquered by oe power or another.

Lancaster has no desire to be a separate nation to York, the Celtic nations have all been afforded greater freedom and autonomy (with the exception of my beloved Cornwall) and yet still have governmental influence on the rule of England. There's a strong argument that they shouldn't have that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:Obama represents America, the Statue was given to Bush after 9/11 as a sign of British/American solidarity. Harking back to a time where America and Britain (obviously others too) stood side by side in difficult times. Him returning it for personal reasons is arrogant. 'I don't like Winston Churchill. Send it back.' As president he should be above such things.

And yet, strangely, he still seems to be offended by his granddad being tortured.

The temerity of it.

Why should the US have involved it's self in the natural assimilation of a weaker state by a stronger one? Why take on Iraq when you've just justified Israel's conquest of neighbouring territory?

1) Should the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, blah blah have? Evidently there was some reason. Even the UN supported it.
2) Still doesn’t support your statement as Kuwait is not a part of the US.
Frazzled wrote:
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.


I was referring to the last 30 years or so. The India Pakistan conflicts are climbing down and have been for a long time now.
***You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.
Tibet was taken in the 50s
***Its still Chinese. The Dali Lama is still bitty bopping around outside of Tibet.

Britain does not sabre rattle about the Falklands,
***Bull fething gak it doesn’t.
Argentinian government or would bes sabre rattle about the Malvinas and then remember what happened last time they tried.
***Don’t push your luck Brit boy. The world has changed. If Brazil sides with them you’re fethed.




Lancaster has no desire to be a separate nation to York
***It was originally conquered. All terriroties in Britain were originally conquered as they amalgamated from tribes into nations. Your country was built on slaughter. Live it, learn it, love it, but don’t be hypocrticial about it.

Many countries were, Britain has had a history of invasions and in-fighting for over a thousand years.
I won't get into the Falkands...

purplefood wrote:Many countries were, Britain has had a history of invasions and in-fighting for over a thousand years.
I won't get into the Falkands...

Thats the point. Every country has a history of invasions, fighting, and infighting. Its what we do. Singling one country out is contraindicated, when it literally obtained those territories after other countries attacked it.

I hardly think that's the same thing - there are still Palistinians alive who can remember being forced out of their homes and businesses to make way for incoming Jews returning 'home' from Europe.

Wait, that situation sounds eerily familiar....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Christ, people half-read an article about BRICs, and all of a sudden Brazil is some global power, ready to stomp all in their path...

The reality is, they still have a long way to go before they surpass the UK in terms of military power.

Albatross wrote:I hardly think that's the same thing - there are still Palistinians alive who can remember being forced out of their homes and businesses to make way for incoming Jews returning 'home' from Europe.

Wait, that situation sounds eerily familiar....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Christ, people half-read an article about BRICs, and all of a sudden Brazil is some global power, ready to stomp all in their path...

The reality is, they still have a long way to go before they surpass the UK in terms of military power.

So what? Conquering is conquering. It doesn't matter when. They should have immediately annexed them (and Syria), but thats the topic for another thread.
Brazil. They would be on their own turf and you're having problems projecting power across the Mediterranean. This is what happens to the Brits. they get arrogant because of their ultimate doomsday weapon of Haggis, forgetting that its devilish powers are only effective on the British Isles (and strangely Pago Pago, hey I don't make this stuff up, I just write about).

Having said that Argentina is not going to make an issue of it.

Alby you do have to remember we don't actually have any aircraft carriers right now...

Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:Many countries were, Britain has had a history of invasions and in-fighting for over a thousand years.
I won't get into the Falkands...

Thats the point. Every country has a history of invasions, fighting, and infighting. Its what we do. Singling one country out is contraindicated, when it literally obtained those territories after other countries attacked it.

It's also a lot harder for us to turn our heads and ignore it when a (culturally?) European nation is responsible. Especially when said nation behaves like the power its constituents fled from. (Israeli marriage laws, anyone?)

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time

It wasn't even Britain (Various foreign kings that eventually lost control of Britain) that did most of the conquering (of Britain), admittedly attempted rebellions were put down with extreme force (16 seperate Irish rebellions to date)
Most of what we have now is staying put and a good deal gets home rule, though how much is a bit iffy...

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time

"As always Ceasar, your word shall be law."
"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."

purplefood wrote:Alby you do have to remember we don't actually have any aircraft carriers right now...

Have you seen their Navy?

Albatross wrote:

purplefood wrote:Alby you do have to remember we don't actually have any aircraft carriers right now...

Have you seen their Navy?

Fair point but one of the key reasons we managed to win the Falklands was because we had a carrier... of course we also had planes for it back then...

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.

Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time

"As always Ceasar, your word shall be law."
"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."

Curses, that quote from antiquity has succeeded in superseding my sense of modern international norms.

Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

My best friend went through officer training for the submarines and said it was actually a lot harder/a closer match than people often realise (the Falklands that is).

Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

Well no but it will make everything a touch more difficult and a fair sight more bloody i imagine...

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.

Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly. I know its a horrible concept. You'll just have to console yourself with maintaining a world class economy, and be free from the constant colonial wars. Ask the Swiss, they are down with peace!