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.

I am drunk right now, so I'm going to leave this be for now.

I'll respond tomorrow once I sober up, and see if it's worth the effort.

 djones520 wrote:
I am drunk right now, so I'm going to leave this be for now.

I'll respond tomorrow once I sober up, and see if it's worth the effort.

Not worth it. Just bask in the greatness that is America Hurr.

MURICA!!!!!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Given that the West spawns things like Anonymous as a byproduct of it's advanced society, I'm not overly stressing the Chinese threat, they are just making the initial exploitations, once the West wakes up and starts responding, China will be the one issuing fairly hollow threats about it's sovereignty and frankly they can suck my balls.

It's gone far beyond time we took back the whip hand and started buying Indian and South America drinks and winking at them from across the bar, China forgot to make the effort when we go out and has been putting on weight lately.

Thank you for that, it actually made me laugh.


And I'll see your Washington picture, and raise you this (NSFW).

It's Thomas Jefferson, but two Presidents off isn't bad for a non-American.

djones520 wrote:It's Thomas Jefferson, but two Presidents off isn't bad for a non-American.

I kinda suspected that it wasn't Washington due to him holding the constitution, but the image looked a lot like him to me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, being confronted with someone you think is talking trash about your country, you should, of course, insult his country and it's war dead.

I know you generally prefer to operate in fact free zones, but could you point out where I did this?

No?

I didn't think so.

 djones520 wrote:
Well... in all fairness the "poster with a British flag" did just as much of an insult to American servicemen who did the same exact thing that your trying to bring that indignation up for.

The "poster with a British flag" didn't actually insult anyone serving in the American forces. He made a satirical comment on the nature of the conflicts that America has embarked upon in the recent and not so recent past.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The "poster with a British flag" didn't actually insult anyone serving in the American forces. He made a satirical comment on the nature of the conflicts that America has embarked upon in the recent and not so recent past.

No one's been insulting anyone else's forces, but that's never stopped the committed from getting hysterical before, I don't see why it should now.

 Seaward wrote:

I know you generally prefer to operate in fact free zones, but could you point out where I did this?

No?

I didn't think so.

When you suggested that the Falklands War was an aggressive action by the British against the Argentinians. You insinuated we, ie our soldiery, attacked the Argentinians, when our servicemen and women actually died protecting British soil from a foreign invader.

I find it especially sad you would actually try to use the Falklands War as an insult and 'get it wrong'. If you're going to make insensitive and glib comments about war, at least have the facts ready to back you up, not back to front.

Educating yourself is not a crime.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
When you suggested that the Falklands War was an aggressive action by the British against the Argentinians. You insinuated we, ie our soldiery, attacked the Argentinians, when our servicemen and women actually died protecting British soil from a foreign invader.

And the Argentinians are firmly convinced their servicemen died trying to protect Argentinian soil. Funny how perspective works, isn't it?

If you're going to make insensitive and glib comments about war, at least have the facts ready to back you up, not back to front.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
When you suggested that the Falklands War was an aggressive action by the British against the Argentinians. You insinuated we, ie our soldiery, attacked the Argentinians, when our servicemen and women actually died protecting British soil from a foreign invader.

And the Argentinians are firmly convinced their servicemen died trying to protect Argentinian soil. Funny how perspective works, isn't it?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If you're going to make insensitive and glib comments about war, at least have the facts ready to back you up, not back to front.

Again, delicious, delicious irony.

If you adhere to the Alanis Morrisette school of irony, yes, I suppose so.

Argentians believe the Falklands are part of Argentina, not some European invader from thousands of miles away, and they were their to free it from oppressors.

British believe the Argentinians were naked aggressors, that the Falklands are part of the UK, and were there to free it from oppressors.

However, I have in my hand an ancient document*, ceding the Falklands to the Republic of Texas. It specifically includes all the waters offshore potentially holding hydrocarbons. Its incredible how they were prescient enough to cede offshore oil deposits but thats a side point. So everyone push off you Oppressors!

*don't mind the fresh queso stain on it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Argentians believe the Falklands are part of Argentina, not some European invader from thousands of miles away, and they were their to free it from oppressors.

British believe the Argentinians were naked aggressors, that the Falklands are part of the UK, and were there to free it from oppressors.

However, I have in my hand an ancient document*, ceding the Falklands to the Republic of Texas. It specifically includes all the waters offshore potentially holding hydrocarbons. Its incredible how they were prescient enough to cede offshore oil deposits but thats a side point. So everyone push off you Oppressors!

*don't mind the fresh queso stain on it.

Texas belongs to Mexico.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Argentians believe the Falklands are part of Argentina, not some European invader from thousands of miles away, and they were their to free it from oppressors.

British believe the Argentinians were naked aggressors, that the Falklands are part of the UK, and were there to free it from oppressors.

However, I have in my hand an ancient document*, ceding the Falklands to the Republic of Texas. It specifically includes all the waters offshore potentially holding hydrocarbons. Its incredible how they were prescient enough to cede offshore oil deposits but thats a side point. So everyone push off you Oppressors!

*don't mind the fresh queso stain on it.

Texas belongs to Mexico.

Close by have it wrong way 'round.

Mexico belongs to Texas!

EDIT: I don't think the world wants to see a combined Texas/Mexico. An unstoppable juggernaut of queso, pickup driving rednecks with their own carrier and battleship, and deathworld cartels.

I know Canada and the UK sure wouldn't stand a chance...

 Frazzled wrote:

Close by have it wrong way 'round.

Mexico belongs to Texas!

EDIT: I don't think the world wants to see a combined Texas/Mexico. An unstoppable juggernaut of queso, pickup driving rednecks with their own carrier and battleship, and deathworld cartels.

I know Canada and the UK sure wouldn't stand a chance...

I do believe I hear Canada apologizing already!

Now that I'm thinking about it, does the UK have a working aircraft carrier for the next oohhhh three months? Why do I ask? No reason (hits speed dial to the Mexican Embassy) "er es, Operation Tacos Over London is now in effect."