New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 19:53 John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:17:17 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:52:01 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:19:45 +0100, Eeyore > >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >John Fields wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:08:25 +0100, Eeyore > >> >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In return you got our 'golden jewels' utterly free of charge like radar and jet engines. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> Hundreds of thousands of American lives lost fighting on your > >> >> >> behalf is hardly "free". > >> >> > > >> >> >On 'our' behalf ? > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> Didn't you ask us to get into the war? > >> > > >> >When we did ask you didn't. > >> > >> --- > >> We would have eventually. Or maybe not, who knows? > >> --- > >> > >> >The USA got into the war on its own account over a dispute with Japan in case you'd forgotten. > >> > >> --- > >> I think "dispute" is a little mild, > > > >It started off as a dispute. > > > > > >> but there was also the nearly > >> simultaneous Declaration of War by Germany, I believe. > > > >Simultaneous ? Japan and Germany were allies ( the Axis ) so by engaging Japan in war you were > >automatically at war with Germany anyway. > > --- > Technically, but I recall reading that Germany issued a formal > Declaration of War against the US when, or right after, Pearl Harbor > got bombed. I think it was a few days later actually . 11 Dec in fact. 3 days after the USA declared war on Japan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm > >> In any case, lucky for you that we got dragged into it when we did, > >> no? > > > >I guess so. It's hard to imagine how it might have gone otherwise but stalemate in Europe is one > >possibilty. > > --- > Remote, I think. In my opinion, Russia would have exhausted Germany > after Hitler gobbled up Europe, and then Europe would have been > Russia's. It's commonly believed that Germany would have sounght an anti-Russian alliance to avoid that happenning. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 4 Aug 2006 19:57 On 8/4/06 12:45 PM, in article 44D3A3C1.3416AEC8(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 8/3/06 11:43 PM, in article 44D2ECAA.8F0FC2DE(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm amused that confronted with a challenge to an IQ test, 'Phat' responded >>> with >>> tales of his virility ! It's a truly sad reflection on the state of the USA >> today. >> >> And that says what about US foreign policy, which you avow is all you are >> commenting on regarding the American people? > > It's an illustration of how dumb he is - which - taken together with other > contributors to this thread shows how misinformed the US is. Hence poor policy > is > no great surprise. > > Graham > And your post shows us how ridiculous is the logic of all you UK folk. Don
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 19:57 Don Bowey wrote: > No, I mean help may not be so readily available when Bush is out and a > Democratic president is in place. We will spend more on internal affairs > and a whole lot less on aid around the world. Depending on what you call 'help' that may be a good thing ! I expect Israel will still get its annual $3 bn though. Graham
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 20:04 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:32:40 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:13:49 +0100, John Woodgate >> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In message <ant4d2d1vilsko5kson7t7c4m63cruvlcu(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >>> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>>> Didn't you ask us to get into the war? >>> Churchill did, several times, and US refused. However, US accepted the >>> Japanese 'invitation'. >>> >>> By the twisted logic of this thread, that proves that the US takes more >>> notice of its enemies than its friends. >> >> --- >> When your friends are busy taking care of themselves and your >> enemies are shooting at you it's hard not to. > >Sounds like Britain in 1940 --- And the US in December of 1941, and any time you're being shot at. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Aug 2006 20:28
John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:32:40 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:13:49 +0100, John Woodgate >>> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <ant4d2d1vilsko5kson7t7c4m63cruvlcu(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >>>> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>>>> Didn't you ask us to get into the war? >>>> Churchill did, several times, and US refused. However, US accepted the >>>> Japanese 'invitation'. >>>> >>>> By the twisted logic of this thread, that proves that the US takes more >>>> notice of its enemies than its friends. >>> --- >>> When your friends are busy taking care of themselves and your >>> enemies are shooting at you it's hard not to. >> Sounds like Britain in 1940 > > --- > And the US in December of 1941, and any time you're being shot at. Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US did not. Dirk |