Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 18:47 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:9g95j2la9hqkbiletfg73ulr826og8a3q3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:58:17 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:qro2j296rl564bdlctcfvhmdo4cr42cpo1(a)4ax.com... >>> Not the most important one of all, the one with us, LOL! >> >>Wasn't important at the time. > > --- > Lack of vision, perhaps? > --- Maybe. But I dont think so. If we had won, we would have had to administer a colony way larger than we could manage and in all likelyhood would have probably lost it to the French. As it stands, by "losing" we came off fairly well. English is still the main language in the world. The UK gets fortunes from US tourists. Oh well. We lost. >>When America got French assistance for it's >>independance we[tinw] were fighting the French for domination of the rest >>of >>the world. >> >>I dont think I have ever heard the American War of Independance described >>as >>the "most important of all" before. > > --- > The most important loss, to you, it turns out. By losing, you lost > all of our resources and the chance to expand your empire by > gobbling up most of the New World. Really? I seem to recall the British Empire went on to become quite large and successfull while your nation was trying to expand. > By winning, we fought and bought our way from ocean to ocean and > have become the most powerful nation on the Earth. Pretty important > war, ISTM. America would have eventually become independant. It always happens in the end. No empire lasts for ever. I suspect it is more WWI and definitely WWII which had this affect on the British Empire, not the loss of the colonies. >>> And probably not the two world wars, without our help. >> >>No way of knowing. Prior to the US overt involvement in WWII the Germans >>had >>shelved their plans to invade the UK. > > --- > What is it you don't understand about world domination? The only > reason he left you alone for a while was because of your policy of > appeasement. In the end, Hitler's plan would have been to gobble > you up along with the rest of the world, and if you didn't resist, > so much the better for him, Without being as patronising as you are trying, what is it you don't understand about world politics. The appeasement line is telling. Failing to invade the UK in the 1940s was a big problem for Germany. After Hitler had diverted his troops to attack Russia, he had nothing like the forces available to mount an invasion after that. If America hadn't got involved, yes, the war would have lasted longer that is almost certain, but without American assistance the UK was able to resist an invasion. What was required was time to rearm. Are you saying that time would not have existed? You are fixated on _your_ vision of this alternate reality being the only one. When trying to rewrite possible outcomes, don't forget neither of us _know_ what Hitler would have done. >>It is equally possible that the UK >>would have been able to establish a treaty of some sort _or_ that Germany >>would have decided to invade once more. In any way, the US "help" cost the >>UK so much (lend-lease terms) it was almost a pyrrhic victory. > > --- > A victory nonetheless, and I'm sure there was dancing in the streets > when it was over. What were the terms, BTW? Repayment over 50 years at 2% interest, granted at lower than "market rates." But it has taken until this year to complete the deal (started repayments in 1950). The lend-lease was an example, sorry I forgot to put the eg. From the issue of this current debate it is not so much the terms of lend-lease but the implied business nature of it. Given the jingoist banter in posts here you would think the US helped the UK win out of the goodness of their hearts. In these terms it was a business deal, albeit a favourable one. >>As far as WWI goes, well, waiting three years until the great European >>powers have decimated their armies _then_ joining in, well that is help. > --- > You seem to forget that we were neutral and wanted to stay that way, > and squabbles you got yourselves into were really none of our > business. No I dont forget that. It is significant. America wanted to stay neutral in WWII as well. Part of the debate is people compaining America only gets involved when their own interests are directly threatened and one of the counter examples was WWI and WWII. >>Certainly shortened the war by a good few months. > > --- > And certainly changed its outcome in your favor, wouldn't you agree? Only by shortening it. The outcome would have probably been the same, except Germany's terms would have been less oppressive and there is a chance Hitler would never have got to power on the crest of the injustice. >>Not sure it was "won" though as an Armistice is a truce not a victory. > > --- > Call it what you like, it was the cessation of hostility. Massive difference between winning and ending fighting. >>What I said still stands and your counter examples only support it. The US >>military is ten times the size of the UK's and was in WWII. In WWII the US >>domestic economy was intact > > --- > Well, FDR was just bringing us out of the Great Depression, so > thankfully the timing was right. The Great Depression hit most of the globe. >>and the country had seen no conflict on it's >>mainland. All the production facilities were still in place and all the >>agriculture was functioning normally. Trying to score points by saying the >>Army that country produced was more effective (eventually) than the one >>the >>UK produced is strange to say the least. The very fact that the UK could >>still field an effective combat force is something to be proud of. > > --- > Definitely. And I'm sure us getting into the fray did wonders for > your morale and allowed you to get your "stiff upper lip" back, I am sure it did.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 18:47 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:49:53 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4532ACA3.FC31F3DC(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> why do you[JB] keep pretending you can beat me in a fight? >> >> It's the only way he knows of 'winning an argument' suince his mental >> capacity >> is too feeble to do it the normal way. > >Very true. But I doubt he is even capable of winning a physical fight. > I don't fight. Were it a face to face confrontation, I'd just crush your pathetic twit throat with a single stroke.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 18:51 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:asc5j2dn7at756pu7cjofks4lgof123183(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:22:09 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>In a democracy people are supposed to be able to affect things. I mean, it >>is the effect on the west of a small group of Islamic extremists that has >>got everyone's knickers in a twist here. > > > You are only about three orders of magnitude off on the count. Nonense. > It is a HUGE problem, dipshit, and your blindness to that fact is > almost as appalling as the DonkTARD's obvious US hating attitude., Nonsense. You appear to live in a police state where the law enforcement can choose if they will or will not abide by the rules and _you_ have no ability to change it. But some Islamic extremists from countries _you_ describe as backwards are capable of destroying it. Amazing really. > considering that you would wish for us to consider you intelligent, > and knowledgeable. I dont care how anyone on USENET thinks of me. For me, the advantage of USENET is I can be myself without worrying what people I know think of me. I suspect in your case it means you can be the person you _wish_ you were, which is why you try to sound tough and are more agressive than a bull elephant in heat. > you just shot that premise all to hell, chucko. Nope. > Pull that one out from between your cheeks and chew on it. Brilliant. Such debating style. I am impressed.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 18:52 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:rvc5j2dlfhbk4lpo0ec1324af8p2o2v9hi(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:03:52 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>You never responded to my question about your alignment with global >>cartels. >>As your attitude and posting signal you are indeed so aligned, I will >>assume >>your lack of response means yes. > > --- > Not necessarily. Ok > I don't generally read your posts since you seem to be nominally > sensible and reading _all_ the posts in this thread is tiresome. Fair one. > Also, sometimes I read a post and disagree with it, but just don't > want to be bothered with answering it and starting another long > harangue. Again, fair comment. The situation remains though. You asked a question which was nothing but a logicall fallacy. > --- > >>>>You're utterly mad. >>> >>> --- >>> From Gershwin's "They all laughed": >>> >>> >>> ..."They all laughed at Christopher Columbus >>> When he said the world was round >>> They all laughed when Edison recorded sound >>> They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother >>> When they said that man could fly >>> >>> They told Marconi >>> Wireless was a phony >>> It's the same old cry"... >> >>Yet they also tell people who are mad they are mad. For every Wright >>brother >>there are millions of idiots and nutcases around the world. The odds are >>stacked against genius. > > --- > And yet... :-) And yet I have never seen a genius post on USENET. :-)
From: Jamie on 15 Oct 2006 22:18
Eeyore wrote: > > JoeBloe wrote: > > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >>>Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on >>>business if you want to meet up. >> >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >> >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity >>to use oxygen. > > > I'd watch it if I were you. > > That could be seen as a threat. > > Graham > > getting a little nervous are we? -- "I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 |