New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 16:51 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:50:13 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% > >>>> of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic > >>>> source of avaition fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not > >>>> to remember. > >>> We also remember we had to pay the bill. It didn't come free as you seem to > >>> infer. > >> The lives were free. You're welcome, even if you're not thankful. > > > > Of course we're thankful for your assistance. We were *both* at war though. It's > > not as if the US volunteered for it ! British, Commonwealth and the soldiers, > > airmen and sailors of other European countries died too you know ! Russian > > casualties were especially high. > > Actually, only Britain and France volunteered for it as a matter of > principle. The US and Russia waited to be attacked. Perfectly true. Graham
From: John Larkin on 4 Aug 2006 17:49 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:29:36 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <44D3A7A2.8AFB84D3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug >2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >> >>John Woodgate wrote: >> >>> In message <44D390B7.75A4B9D1(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug >>> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >>> >>> >The UN plan didn't give Israel all the territory. >>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947. >>> >png >>> >>> That was never going to work, was it. Three bits, two joined by a narrow >>> corridor and the third completely separate. And huge long borders with, >>> at least, unfriendly people, if not actively hostile. >>> >>> A real 'horse designed by a committee'. >> >>Presumably done by taking into account the local population distribution. Seems >>you can't win. It was a British plan btw ! >> >This is VERY relevant to the present situation. The UN 'solution' was >clearly unworkable. So have been the long succession of 'solutions' >since then. What C Rice said is completely correct - that yet another >unworkable 'solution' is unacceptable. > >An 'immediate cease-fire' is just a sound bite; everyone with even a >glimmer of intelligence knows that it would just give Hisbollah the >opportunity to re-group and re-supply. > >The only long-term stable solution is a strong, democratic Lebanese >government, with a loyal armed service strong enough to disarm and >disband Hisbollah and deter Syria and Iran, who are Lebanon's real >enemies. Israel won't attack Lebanon if not provoked. Why should it? It >has nothing to gain by doing so. It doesn't attack Jordan or Egypt. Oh, stop making sense. John
From: John Larkin on 4 Aug 2006 17:57 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:36:22 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:50:13 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% >> >> of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic >> >> source of avaition fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not >> >> to remember. >> > >> >We also remember we had to pay the bill. It didn't come free as you seem to >> >infer. >> >> The lives were free. You're welcome, even if you're not thankful. > >Of course we're thankful for your assistance. We were *both* at war though. It's >not as if the US volunteered for it ! Debate continues on whether Roosevelt got us into the war by intent. It certainly was our act of cutting off Japan from our supplies of oil and steel that made them need to expand, and simultaneously clean us out of the Pacific; hence Pearl Harbor. John
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 18:05 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:20:15 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <3b57d2dc0pue0e65eqg504b9d9ljfig8ci(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>you take _my_ error and try to make it seem like it applies it to the >>entire country as if _I_ was all of America > >Well, you and some of your colleagues here seem to claim to speak for >the whole USA. --- A misunderstanding easily cleared up, at least for my posts. If I were to write: "America bites." or, "I think America bites." then that's me speaking for myself. However, If I were to write: "We think America bites." Then in the absence of qualification, I'd be speaking for the whole country. And, so it seems, for a good part of the rest of the world... --- >And some of the opposite political persuasion also do that. --- I don't know who you mean. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 18:08
John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:36:22 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:50:13 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> >> Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% > >> >> of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic > >> >> source of avaition fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not > >> >> to remember. > >> > > >> >We also remember we had to pay the bill. It didn't come free as you seem to > >> >infer. > >> > >> The lives were free. You're welcome, even if you're not thankful. > > > >Of course we're thankful for your assistance. We were *both* at war though. It's > >not as if the US volunteered for it ! > > Debate continues on whether Roosevelt got us into the war by intent. > It certainly was our act of cutting off Japan from our supplies of oil > and steel that made them need to expand, and simultaneously clean us > out of the Pacific; hence Pearl Harbor. I dare say that debate will run and run ! I'm aware that Roosevelt was sympathetic to the UK's position but he knew that domestic opinion was against involvement. Graham |