Re: US Self Defence nut (History derail)

[mistermack]

split from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=37052

And anyway, you people in the US kept on TRADING with people who backed the fatwah. You didn't mind the oil in your car coming from fatwah supporters. You might get all high and mighty about a singer, but principles go out of the window, if it means dearer gasoline.

You're right, the US is unique in its pragmatism. No other country in the world buys oil while decrying the madrasa those purchases fund.

Yeah, spare me.

Which side would you rather have live up to its ideals mistermack?

The problem is that the US only lives up to it's ideals, when it has a tiny country with a shit army to attack.
When it was Germany that was not behaving ideally, the US shit in it's panties for two years, before the japs bombed them into "living up to their ideals".

Banning pop singers doesn't cost much, or take any courage. That's just about america's dap.
Paying a bit more for oil, for your ideals, that's different.

[Seth]

And anyway, you people in the US kept on TRADING with people who backed the fatwah. You didn't mind the oil in your car coming from fatwah supporters. You might get all high and mighty about a singer, but principles go out of the window, if it means dearer gasoline.

You're right, the US is unique in its pragmatism. No other country in the world buys oil while decrying the madrasa those purchases fund.

Yeah, spare me.

Which side would you rather have live up to its ideals mistermack?

The problem is that the US only lives up to it's ideals, when it has a tiny country with a shit army to attack.
When it was Germany that was not behaving ideally, the US shit in it's panties for two years, before the japs bombed them into "living up to their ideals".

Hey, it was the Brits shitting their pants to appease Hitler all that time, or does the name "Chamberlain" elude you? All of Europe sat on the Chamberlain pot ignoring Hitler until it was too late, and only then did they appeal to the US for help, which we sent in abundance via Victory ship (including, I note, privately owned firearms from US citizens willing to donate them to the Home Guard because the fucking idiots in charge over there had disarmed the populace after WWI). Your war was not our war until we were attacked on our home ground by Japan.

[Clinton Huxley]

At the time appeasement was a popular policy, given that the horrific slaughter of WWI was only a generation before. People thought another World War might be much worse. It was logical to attempt to avoid it. Turned out to be a hopeless policy but that's hindsight for you.

[mistermack]

At the time appeasement was a popular policy, given that the horrific slaughter of WWI was only a generation before. People thought another World War might be much worse. It was logical to attempt to avoid it. Turned out to be a hopeless policy but that's hindsight for you.

It's unbelievable that an American should criticise Britain for not going to war sooner.
Unbelievable.
Fucking unbelievable.
Hypocritical.
Incredibly hypocritical.
Fucking hypocritical.
It was Seth.
Oh, yeh, right.

[Seth]

At the time appeasement was a popular policy, given that the horrific slaughter of WWI was only a generation before. People thought another World War might be much worse. It was logical to attempt to avoid it. Turned out to be a hopeless policy but that's hindsight for you.

It's unbelievable that an American should criticise Britain for not going to war sooner.
Unbelievable.
Fucking unbelievable.
Hypocritical.
Incredibly hypocritical.
Fucking hypocritical.
It was Seth.
Oh, yeh, right.

Hey, you want to blame us for not pulling your fat from the fire (again) soon enough to suit you, so I thought I'd return the favor by pointing out that England was hoist on its own petard and is lucky as hell that we decided to help at all. If we hadn't, you'd either be goose-stepping and roasting in ovens or saying "Das vedanya" to your freedom as the hammer and sickle waved over an empty Parliament. The US has been keeping sorry Brit asses (not to mention French, German and every fucking body else in Europe) safe from tyrants and despots for more than 70 years now, and all we get in return is asswipes criticizing us for having the very system and laws that allow those selfsame asswipes to remain relatively free all this time and a big tax bill to pay for all the military defense of nations that don't deserve to still exist.

Long past time for the US to tell the UK to go fuck itself (along with the rest of Europe) and let them fall under the domination of anyone with a couple of slingshots and a baseball bat who wants to subjugate an already subjugated and servile waste of perfectly good ocean called "England."

[klr]

And anyway, you people in the US kept on TRADING with people who backed the fatwah. You didn't mind the oil in your car coming from fatwah supporters. You might get all high and mighty about a singer, but principles go out of the window, if it means dearer gasoline.

You're right, the US is unique in its pragmatism. No other country in the world buys oil while decrying the madrasa those purchases fund.

Yeah, spare me.

Which side would you rather have live up to its ideals mistermack?

The problem is that the US only lives up to it's ideals, when it has a tiny country with a shit army to attack.
When it was Germany that was not behaving ideally, the US shit in it's panties for two years, before the japs bombed them into "living up to their ideals".

Hey, it was the Brits shitting their pants to appease Hitler all that time, or does the name "Chamberlain" elude you? All of Europe sat on the Chamberlain pot ignoring Hitler until it was too late, and only then did they appeal to the US for help, which we sent in abundance via Victory ship (including, I note, privately owned firearms from US citizens willing to donate them to the Home Guard because the fucking idiots in charge over there had disarmed the populace after WWI). Your war was not our war until we were attacked on our home ground by Japan.

Strange view of history I must say. US isolationism, anyone?

[Robert_S]

Why don't you guys take the WWII stuff over to the other thread where we have been stereotyping each other over the decisions of dead politicians?

[Thumpalumpacus]

]It's unbelievable that an American should criticise Britain for not going to war sooner.

Read your Churchill and return to this point. He was very clear that war should have been commenced in 1936.

Too bad Baldwin was too busy weeping at the prospect. Had he, and the French economy, been more robust, the world might have been spared much suffering.

Also, it's pretty funny seeing you criticize America for meddling and for its isolationism, in the same thread. Watching your mental contortions is good for entertainment ... for the time being.

[mistermack]

Read your Churchill and return to this point. He was very clear that war should have been commenced in 1936.

Firstly, I don't recall that. I'd appreciate a link. Also, an explanation of how Britain could have gone to war alone.
Secondly, Churchill was not even leader of the opposition at that stage. You can say what you like, when there's no prospect of having to do it.
Thirdly, Churchill was a cunt. There were plenty of other people who were advising rapid re-armament. Churchill just had the aristocratic connections, and got all the publicity.

Also, it's pretty funny seeing you criticize America for meddling and for its isolationism, in the same thread. Watching your mental contortions is good for entertainment ... for the time being.

You obviously can't understand a simple post then.
I was absolutely clear that historically America has gone for soft targets and shirked the real big one when it happened.
What's so hard to understand about that?

[MrJonno]

Britain didnt go to war earlierly partly because WW1 had put everyone of it a bit but actually because they didnt think it was there war, strangely exactly the same reasons the US didnt

[Robert_S]

I imagine that some in the US might have been thinking something like: "Oh great: another round of Europe-wide war! Oh look, this time some of Asia's involved too... and Africa as well? That's just wonderful! I just can't wait to get involved in this shitstorm, or maybe let's just ingest random cleaning products instead. "

[Thumpalumpacus]

Read your Churchill and return to this point. He was very clear that war should have been commenced in 1936.

Firstly, I don't recall that. I'd appreciate a link.

Not a problem. In his first volume of the history of the Second World War, The Gathering Storm, in Chapter XI, Churchill writes:

Also, an explanation of how Britain could have gone to war alone.

A further perusal of Churchill's views, espoused in that book and in his speeches as well, show clearly that he envisioned military action under the rubric of international action, namely with France and the other Locarno signatories.

Secondly, Churchill was not even leader of the opposition at that stage. You can say what you like, when there's no prospect of having to do it.

So what? The point I was answering was this comment of yours:

It's unbelievable that an American should criticise Britain for not going to war sooner.

Churchill's position was irrelevant. His British citizenship is enough to show how vapid this point of yours is.

Thirdly, Churchill was a cunt. There were plenty of other people who were advising rapid re-armament. Churchill just had the aristocratic connections, and got all the publicity.

Another irrelevancy.

You obviously can't understand a simple post then.
I was absolutely clear that historically America has gone for soft targets and shirked the real big one when it happened.
What's so hard to understand about that?

Considering that you're saying that your own country was right to have shirked the big target in 1936, this objection of yours is quaintly funny. It's clear to me that you don't even understand what you yourself are arguing.

Now, go study your own history a little so that you don't look so foolish the next time we chat. Your education isn't my responsibility, thankfully.

[mistermack]

What a stupid post. Churchill wrote all that stuff LONG AFTER the war. Or was your original post the stupid one.
Were you seriously making the point that Churchill called for Britain to go to war with Germany in 1936, LONG AFTER THE WAR HAD ENDED?

Either way, it's just plain dumb.

You claim that Churchill called for Britain to enter the war as early as 1936, and quote a work that began appearing in 1948. That's ludicrous, even by your standards.
Winston Churchill's hindsight is no better than mine. It's always perfect. If he'd called for it in 1935, there might be a point in what you wrote.

And it's complete bollocks anyway. Nobody could have persuaded the British to join up for a war in 1936. Appeasment was popular right up to when Hitler started ignoring the treaties.
And nobody could have persuaded the French either.
You and Churchill deserve each other. You both come out with incredible crap.

Now, go study your own history a little so that you don't look so foolish the next time we chat. Your education isn't my responsibility, thankfully.

No, thankfully. Bullshit of that standard I can do without.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You don't seem to realize that that doesn't change the fact that a Briton supported going to war instead of appeasement. The fact that you don't know this about your own country is pathetic.

His opinion of the Ten-Years' Rule was and is well-known; he clearly anticipated a war and was wise enough to see that sooner was better than later.

You bore me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

From March, 1936, in Commons:

If we had only begun to act three years ago when the danger first made itself apparent, we should possess a reserve power to-day which could spring at any moment into full preparatory activity.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... 10_HOC_267