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.

notprop wrote:The Red Baron perchance?

Wrong war.

No, this chap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

ArbeitsSchu wrote:No, this chap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

I read up on this guy when I reas researching the Iron Cross - pretty amazing, you would hardly think such things were possible outside of fiction.

halonachos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm sure the 7 American pilots that showed up of their own accord gave a good account of themselves though.

We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.

Just to be clear I wasn't mocking the performance of American pilots in the Battle of Britain. They did well to ignore the Neutrality Act and get in on the action early, and no doubt flew well. I was mocking our "Prime" minister and his stupidity in making ridiculous and blatantly untrue claims because he wants to jam his head firmly up Obama's ass. Or at least I assume he was lying for a reason, because that worries me slightly less than if he actually doesn't know what happened in the forties, and really does believe that when The Few stood "alone" they were doing so with the full support of the USAAF, and thus neither "Few" nor "alone."

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

*snip*

I think he may have been reffering to material aid shipped in by the US rather than pilots (as a pilot contest would make Poland the UK's best buddy).

He was still jamming his head up Obama's arse though.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

*snip*

I think he may have been reffering to material aid shipped in by the US rather than pilots (as a pilot contest would make Poland the UK's best buddy).

He was still jamming his head up Obama's arse though.

Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.

I get the impression that mentioning the Poles is politically a bad idea, given that we ostensibly started the damn war to help them, and promptly sold them down the river immediately afterwards, which IMO is shocking and perhaps the most criminal act London perpetrated during the war (even beyond Dresden, which is everyones poster boy for Allied War Crimes.) That and I can't see Cameron wanting to admit that everybody's "favourite" immigrants were actually helpful.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.

Really?

I honestly wasn't aware of that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.

Really?

I honestly wasn't aware of that.

March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm considering for the sake of argument that materials purchased by regular means (ie cash) don't strictly count as special help, or a massive contribution, or anything other than regular trade.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.

Really?

I honestly wasn't aware of that.

March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.

So what we have here is not, in fact, a flatteringl reference to history by the PM, but us witnessing a political blowjob?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Its possible he thought he was. He would still have been wrong though, given that Lend/lease didn't start 'til the following year.

Really?

I honestly wasn't aware of that.

March 1941. Battle of Britain was mid-1940. There was an agreement to trade US Destroyers for Caribbean bases, but as Royal Navy Destroyers tend not to fly, their contribution to the aerial battle was understandably limited.

So what we have here is not, in fact, a flatteringl reference to history by the PM, but us witnessing a political blowjob?

Or a Prime Minister with a staggering ignorance of key historical events in UK history. I'm tempted to see it as a mix of intercontinental fellatio and sheer bobble-headed laziness on the part of a public schoolboy who probably spent more time learning how to rape the poor of their income than he ever did about taking on dictatorships. (If he listened to any part of it, it seems to have been the bit about how to seize power using a coalition.)

And class war in...5...4...3...2...

Albatross wrote:And class war in...5...4...3...2...

Rabblerabblerabble!

Whilst I dislike pretty much all politicians, I dislike "just call me Dave" less than most of our recent overlords.

Class? LOL. Its no longer about class. Its about "poor" (anyone who isn't a millionaire) and "Rich" (Cameron and his mates.)

Bear in mind that in the modern UK, people who are traditionally upper class can be as poor as church mice, and people who are definitely "Working class" end up on TV doing the Apprentice and as peers in the House of Lords (Sir Alan "I had a wheelbarrer" Cockney Sugar.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Problem is that working class boys like Sugar worked their way up to the top, then put in a new glass ceiling that was better than the old one because of their Leet Tradesmen Skills.

You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.

I'm not that fussed with Cameron (Despite the fact he is a Tory) i just hate Clegg...

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:It isn't my fault that you made it through law school without learning what "diplomacy" means.

Fortunately for me, diplomacy isn't a required course. But it's these types of petty insults that make me regret engaging you.

Yep.

Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.

As opposed to rich and badly educated?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:As opposed to rich and badly educated?

Well, I suppose at least he can afford to go back to university...

SilverMK2 wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:As opposed to rich and badly educated?

Well, I suppose at least he can afford to go back to university...

Unlike many others...

purplefood wrote:Unlike many others...

Which is kind of my point

Shame the Lib Dems didn't actually fulfil one of their main election pledges and stop tuition fees.

SilverMK2 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Unlike many others...

Which is kind of my point

Shame the Lib Dems didn't actually fulfil one of their main election pledges and stop tuition fees.

Shame no one has gotten to Nick Clegg yet...
Thanks to him going back on his word it's gonna cost me 9 grand a year to go to University, when my sister went it was only 1 grand...

Yeah, though they lost pretty much all their seats at the local elections. Probably because the only people that voted for them previously were students... who all decided to jump ship this time

I laughed at that...
The first time the Lib Dems have been in power for almost 100 years and they do it through lying and begin to lose power rapidly afterwards.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:Well this thread went south quickly...
Anyone up for cricket?

on Saturdays I normally take team Weinie for an epic tale of high adventure around Milburn park (Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since November 2009). They have a Pakistani/Indian group of guys that play Kricket there in the morning. Its kind of neat as there is often swim team competitions or soccer going on at the same time.

I've been by Tom Bass Park in Houston to play frisbee golf a few times (silly game, that). There was a cricket match going on there both times, too. Also Pakistan and/or Indian players.

To the original subject, I spent 10 days in the UK (Wales and London, primarily) a few years ago. I loved the sites, the people, and the beer.

Bumped into a few spankers at a bar in Reading, but otherwise enjoyed myself completely.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.

As opposed to rich and badly educated?

So graduating with a first from Oxford adds up to 'badly educated' in your mind? Right...

I think conversations like this would be a lot more honest if people just laid their cards on the table and went: 'I don't like him because I'm a hater - I can't stand to see a wealthy person doing well, and although I am aware that this is quite a pathetic stance to take, it doesn't change the fact that I simply don't like him because he's a bit posh, and so can't possibly deserve to be in a position of power.'

Seriously, just take ownership of it. You're suffering from an acute case of prejudice.

He has done some nice things... the cuts may have been a touch too deep in the wrong places but they are achievable.
Local governments are beginning to share services to cut costs which should help enormously.
Many people have an ingrained response to Tories which is fair considering their track record of f**king with the working class.
However Labour needed to lose because they need time to regroup and reorganise... though that particular Milliband brother is the wrong guy for the job... he also looks evil.

Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.

LOL.

Yeah, I wish the PM was one of "the lads" you know, one of the lack witted spotty fethers who used to smoke behind the bike sheds and didnt get any GCSEs! He would be MINT as PM.

Im a working class bloke from Middlesbrough, but im educated enough to notice the idiocy of the "class warrior", its literally as stupid as sectarianism in my eyes, take people as individuals right? You cant help where you are born, just like you cant help if your born a prod or a catholic. And its applied the exact same way too, usually involving the brainwashing of kids by ridiculous blokes who like the socialist workers party, or particualrly left leaning labour voters.

Thatcher didnt go to public school, and ALL the MPs are posh, so why not put this stupid argument to bed? Do you think Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg went to a scrubbers school?

Im working class, but ive got a brain that allows me to rise above the wealthy people. As a result, I think Just call me Dave is awesome. Superdave shall be his name!

And he doubled the operational allowance for the armed forces, what a gent!

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:You're right of course, I'd much rather the leader of our government be poor and badly-educated.

As opposed to rich and badly educated?

So graduating with a first from Oxford adds up to 'badly educated' in your mind? Right...

I think conversations like this would be a lot more honest if people just laid their cards on the table and went: 'I don't like him because I'm a hater - I can't stand to see a wealthy person doing well, and although I am aware that this is quite a pathetic stance to take, it doesn't change the fact that I simply don't like him because he's a bit posh, and so can't possibly deserve to be in a position of power.'

Seriously, just take ownership of it. You're suffering from an acute case of prejudice.

Seems you're suffering from a terrible case of missing the point. You remember, earlier in the thread? The bit about him demonstrating he wasn't listening in History by painting the Americans as a major part of the Battle of Britain? I don't care how much money someone paid to go to school, the point of being there is to learn. Its a noddy mistake to make, and one which our leader should not be making. Its either that or he's deliberately lying, in which case see below.

And no, I'm not particularly concerned by "posh" people or "rich" people. I'm disturbed by liars and people who make stupid mistakes when they should know better. I don't like Cameron because all his little minions are busy persecuting the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, as he claims to "understand what they are going through" despite the fact he clearly does not. I don't like Alan Sugar because he has a curiously shaped head which unsettles me, and because he's rude, not because he has a helicopter.

So yeah, kindly don't invent prejudices for me to have, especially when you know exactly bugger all about me.

You brought up the fact that Cameron is public school educated. Me? I don't give a gak, as long as his government tackles the legacy of Labour profligacy.

You shouldn't care either, as it has no detrimental effect on his ability to discharge his duties as prime minister. I just find it odd that people like you keep bringing it up. If you're telling me you're not a small-minded bigot, then fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part.

Also, to my mind, whilst making a factual error when discussing our national obsession (WWII) is a little foolish, it's not in the same league as sending young British men to die in an illegal war based on fabricated evidence. Something to think on.

Alby has a very good point here...