Sorry, bit behind on the news, but it appears a member of Labour's front bench has

[Burney]

described her own party's economic plans as a 'shît or bust' strategy.

Oh, dear lord! :hehe:

Putting to one's side the obvious jokes about it being both, does it not seem a tad worrying that Her Majesty's Opposition's 'plan' appears to be rolling the dice with the country's economy by just spending a fück ton of magic money?

[Monty92]

described her own party's economic plans as a 'shît or bust' strategy.

Oh, dear lord! :hehe:

Putting to one's side the obvious jokes about it being both, does it not seem a tad worrying that Her Majesty's Opposition's 'plan' appears to be rolling the dice with the country's economy by just spending a fück ton of magic money?

Doesn't matter, though does it, since they're not getting anywhere near power, so you promise me.
:-|

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

described her own party's economic plans as a 'shît or bust' strategy.

Oh, dear lord! :hehe:

Putting to one's side the obvious jokes about it being both, does it not seem a tad worrying that Her Majesty's Opposition's 'plan' appears to be rolling the dice with the country's economy by just spending a fück ton of magic money?

when their mates in the banking sector basically lose at roulette.

[Burney]

when their mates in the banking sector basically lose at roulette.

Sorry? When did the tories bail out the banking sector again?

Only I could have sworn that was a Labour Government that did that.

[Burney]

Doesn't matter, though does it, since they're not getting anywhere near power, so you promise me.
:-|

Oh, they’re not. The longer things go without them breaking through, the more certain I am.

Also, Owen Jones is trying to soften up the anti-Brexit middle class base for the fact that Labour are going to have to get off the fence and back Brexit, so they’re about to have their own internal shįtstorm.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

They're all Tories b

[Burney]

They're all Tories b

Ah, yes. ‘Red Tories’ like Peter. :nod:

[Pokster]

Sorry? When did the tories bail out the banking sector again?

Only I could have sworn that was a Labour Government that did that.

Good job they did as well

[Burney]

Good job they did as well

Didn’t deny it. :shrug:

[Pokster]

Didn’t deny it. :shrug:

Didn't say you did :shrug:

This could go on like a game of tennis

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

In fairness, the QE continued well into Cameron's first tenure*

*had to look it up - wouldn't have known

[Pokster]

In fairness, the QE continued well into Cameron's first tenure*

*had to look it up - wouldn't have known

QE didn't bail the banks out...

[Burney]

In fairness, the QE continued well into Cameron's first tenure*

*had to look it up - wouldn't have known

Of course it did. It sort of had to. That was the post-collapse strategy. He could hardly have come in and pulled the plug without tanking the economy.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

described her own party's economic plans as a 'shît or bust' strategy.

Oh, dear lord! :hehe:

Putting to one's side the obvious jokes about it being both, does it not seem a tad worrying that Her Majesty's Opposition's 'plan' appears to be rolling the dice with the country's economy by just spending a fück ton of magic money?

Totally, B, totally.

Almost as bad as HMG rolling the dice with our entire economic future in 2016 simply to try and face down some rowdy back-benchers than even Major had had the balls to stand up to.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

QE didn't bail the banks out...

Sorry mate .. not very good at sums and all that.

Who did bail out the banks?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Totally, B, totally.

Almost as bad as HMG rolling the dice with our entire economic future in 2016 simply to try and face down some rowdy back-benchers than even Major had had the balls to stand up to.

GPWM Gan ..GPVWM

[Burney]

Totally, B, totally.

Almost as bad as HMG rolling the dice with our entire economic future in 2016 simply to try and face down some rowdy back-benchers than even Major had had the balls to stand up to.

:hehe: Yes. How dare they give the British people the right to determine how they should be governed? Disgusting!

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

fight! fight!

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Pok and Berni that is

[Burney]

Pok and Berni that is

Fùckssake, h. You don’t read so good either, do you?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

:hehe: Yes. How dare they give the British people the right to determine how they should be governed? Disgusting!

Oh for fuxake b. The whole thing is a fúcking shambles and is going to ruin us.

[Pokster]

Sorry mate .. not very good at sums and all that.

Who did bail out the banks?

Labour (quite correctly) rescued Lloyds and RBS... and would likely have had to rescue Barclay's if it hadn't done some dodgy deals

[Pokster]

Pok and Berni that is

I'm a lover not a fighter herbs

[Burney]

Oh for fuxake b. The whole thing is a fúcking shambles and is going to ruin us.

:hehe: It really isn’t, you know. It’ll be fine. It’s only faint-hearted, lily-livered pussies like you and gg who think it will.

[Burney]

I'm a lover not a fighter herbs

Yes, well I’m doing neither with you, thanks.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Oh, they’re not. The longer things go without them breaking through, the more certain I am.

Also, Owen Jones is trying to soften up the anti-Brexit middle class base for the fact that Labour are going to have to get off the fence and back Brexit, so they’re about to have their own internal shįtstorm.

You may rationalise and intellectualise til the cows come home b. The last election sealed your reputation as a man whose finger is a long way from the pulse. Was it a 100 seat majority for the Tories?

[Pokster]

Yes, well I’m doing neither with you, thanks.

Spoilsport

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Labour (quite correctly) rescued Lloyds and RBS... and would likely have had to rescue Barclay's if it hadn't done some dodgy deals

Thank you kind Sir. It wasn't the Bank of England then.

No wonder my party subs had to go up :-D

[Burney]

You may rationalise and intellectualise til the cows come home b. The last election sealed your reputation as a man whose finger is a long way from the pulse. Was it a 100 seat majority for the Tories?

In common with pretty much everyone else (m aside), I got it wrong. I put my hands up.

However, my record to that point was excellent. I underestimated the effect Brexit would have on the (entirely misplaced) protest vote for Labour would be. It won’t happen again.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

:hehe: Yes. How dare they give the British people the right to determine how they should be governed? Disgusting!

You know what I'm gonna say:

So if the public vote for JC (most not having read the manifesto) that is bad.

If the public vote for Brexit (without having a clue about basic economics) that is good.

Is this like one of those irregular verbs?

[Pokster]

Thank you kind Sir. It wasn't the Bank of England then.

No wonder my party subs had to go up :-D

The BOE were instructed to bail them out... IF they hadn't what happened would have seemed like a tea party compared to what would have happened.... just need to get our money back on RBS, might do it someeime during my kids lifetime

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

:hehe: It really isn’t, you know. It’ll be fine. It’s only faint-hearted, lily-livered pussies like you and gg who think it will.

Well it ain't gonna ruin you ya soft handed middle-class tosser. You'll still be sitting on your capacious buttocks getting overpaid to produce a couple of pages of prose very week about fúcking farming machinery or whatever branch of journalism you are in.

Those of us expected to actually operate the machinery will be them as will suffer.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

The BOE were instructed to bail them out

So all of this stuff about the BOE being independent is scurrilous fallacy - for shame!

http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/how-is-the-bank-of-england-independent-of-the-government/

[PSRB]

In common with pretty much everyone else (m aside), I got it wrong. I put my hands up.

However, my record to that point was excellent. I underestimated the effect Brexit would have on the (entirely misplaced) protest vote for Labour would be. It won’t happen again.

Well let's hope not

[Burney]

You know what I'm gonna say:

So if the public vote for JC (most not having read the manifesto) that is bad.

If the public vote for Brexit (without having a clue about basic economics) that is good.

Is this like one of those irregular verbs?

Good thing or bad thing, if they vote for either, it's something that those of us who don't like it have to accept. That is democracy. :shrug:

By the way, the big mistake you remainers always make is thinking that the economy was a factor in voting for Brexit. It wasn't. Whether you think it ought to have been isn't really the point. It wasn't. There was more at stake and people knew very well there might be a negative financial impact from leaving and voted to do it anyway. It's a thing called principle.

[Pokster]

So all of this stuff about the BOE being independent is scurrilous fallacy - for shame!

http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/how-is-the-bank-of-england-independent-of-the-government/

The first line where they say they are owned by the Govt gives it away somewhat

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Good thing or bad thing, if they vote for either, it's something that those of us who don't like it have to accept. That is democracy. :shrug:

By the way, the big mistake you remainers always make is thinking that the economy was a factor in voting for Brexit. It wasn't. Whether you think it ought to have been isn't really the point. It wasn't. There was more at stake and people knew very well there might be a negative financial impact from leaving and voted to do it anyway. It's a thing called principle.

B, you're meant to be better than this.

Where have I ever said voting Brexit was about the economics?

Yes, as you sort of hint after, I believe that it should have been about the economics. But I know full well the Brexit voters weren't thinking of that beyond a few Tory neo-lib loons.

My sister in law (in immigrant free Cornwall) voted leave "To **** the lot of them."

I'm sure loads of northerns voted out for immigration like that 2010 "Bigotted woman." But, and I quote:

"the big mistake you remainers always make is thinking that the economy was a factor in voting for Brexit. "

I never said that, ever, did I?

So why the veil of fiction?

Could it be that I've shown that your criticism of JC at the start of this post applies exactly to Brexit too and you can't find a way out?

"people knew very well there might be a negative financial impact from leaving and voted to do it anyway. It's a thing called principle."

Er, that's what Momentum say, B, init?

That's what this 'JC's **** or bust with the UK econ" is, init, B?

Same ting, blood.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Good thing or bad thing, if they vote for either, it's something that those of us who don't like it have to accept. That is democracy. :shrug:

By the way, the big mistake you remainers always make is thinking that the economy was a factor in voting for Brexit. It wasn't. Whether you think it ought to have been isn't really the point. It wasn't. There was more at stake and people knew very well there might be a negative financial impact from leaving and voted to do it anyway. It's a thing called principle.


I think you may be giving far too many people far too much credit.

It is likely that most of the voters didn't have any idea of the essence of what they were voting for.

[Burney]

B, you're meant to be better than this.

Where have I ever said voting Brexit was about the economics?

Yes, as you sort of hint after, I believe that it should have been about the economics. But I know full well the Brexit voters weren't thinking of that beyond a few Tory neo-lib loons.

My sister in law (in immigrant free Cornwall) voted leave "To **** the lot of them."

I'm sure loads of northerns voted out for immigration like that 2010 "Bigotted woman." But, and I quote:

"the big mistake you remainers always make is thinking that the economy was a factor in voting for Brexit. "

I never said that, ever, did I?

So why the veil of fiction?

Could it be that I've shown that your criticism of JC at the start of this post applies exactly to Brexit too and you can't find a way out?

"people knew very well there might be a negative financial impact from leaving and voted to do it anyway. It's a thing called principle."

Er, that's what Momentum say, B, init?

That's what this 'JC's **** or bust with the UK econ" is, init, B?

Same ting, blood.

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.

[Burney]

I think you may be giving far too many people far too much credit.

It is likely that most of the voters didn't have any idea of the essence of what they were voting for.


I think everyone knew what they were voting for. Did they all know the implications of that vote? Of course not. How could they? It's unprecedented.

[Pokster]

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.

On a simpistic view I should imagine that many people feel that with inflation * rising a lot faster than wages that, in their view, the economy is ****ed already. you and I know that isn't the case, but individuals usually vote on what they feel at that time, so if an election was called tomorrow a large % would vote Labour thinking it would make things better for them.

* will start falling rapidly over the next 12 months

[Peter]

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.


CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

THe argument that Labour would be a disaster because it would create a run on the pound is a Thatcher classic. It suggests we should allow the stock market and multinationals to make our political decisions for us, disrupting the democratic process that you cherish to dearly. It is also hardly ever true. It wasnt in 1945, it wasnt in 1964, and it wasnt in 1997.

And even if it were, it wouldn't matter. People vote Labour on PRINCIPLE, b. Just as they voted for Brexit :)

[Peter]

I think everyone knew what they were voting for. Did they all know the implications of that vote? Of course not. How could they? It's unprecedented.

They understood the rudimentary basics of yes and no and they voted no.

THe argument that they didnt know what no meant tends to gnome the fact that, if true, they probably didnt know what yes meant either.

[Burney]

CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

THe argument that Labour would be a disaster because it would create a run on the pound is a Thatcher classic. It suggests we should allow the stock market and multinationals to make our political decisions for us, disrupting the democratic process that you cherish to dearly. It is also hardly ever true. It wasnt in 1945, it wasnt in 1964, and it wasnt in 1997.

And even if it were, it wouldn't matter. People vote Labour on PRINCIPLE, b. Just as they voted for Brexit :)

I've already dealt with the principle issue, p. :shrug: I respect people's rights to vote for whatever they want to, but believe the equivalence between voting for Corbyn and voting for Brexit to be utterly false for the reasons I've outlined.

And let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that voting for Labour in '45, '64 or '97 is even vaguely similar to voting for this lot. For fück's sake, this time it's actually Labour themselves who are suggesting they'll cause a run on the pound! :hehe:

[Peter]

I've already dealt with the principle issue, p. :shrug: I respect people's rights to vote for whatever they want to, but believe the equivalence between voting for Corbyn and voting for Brexit to be utterly false for the reasons I've outlined.

And let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that voting for Labour in '45, '64 or '97 is even vaguely similar to voting for this lot. For fück's sake, this time it's actually Labour themselves who are suggesting they'll cause a run on the pound! :hehe:

1945 was the most radical political manifesto ever produced in british history. 'We are the Masters Now' and all that.

Admittedly, there was a war going on so a run on the pound was not really a major concern.

[Burney]

Admittedly, there was a war going on so a run on the pound was not really a major concern.

Well quite. Also, there was no money in the fùcking banks. The Americans had it all.

[Peter]

Well quite. Also, there was no money in the fùcking banks. The Americans had it all.

THey were paying for our nights out at the time, to be fair.

[Burney]

THey were paying for our nights out at the time, to be fair.

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

[Ash]

Those of us expected to actually operate the machinery will be them as will suffer.

Yeah. Watch your fingers when operating that C++ compiler, Herbs. It could take them clean off! And it'll be that Brexit's fault.

[Peter]

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

You dont turn up to a party three hours late and claim to be the life and soul.

Damn yankees.....

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Yeah. Watch your fingers when operating that C++ compiler, Herbs. It could take them clean off! And it'll be that Brexit's fault.

Java these days old chap

[Burney]

You dont turn up to a party three hours late and claim to be the life and soul.

Damn yankees.....

Mind you, I was looking at these Spectator Index figures on deaths in the war and thinking we played it quite cannily, really.

Thanks Russia, you dozy cünts. :hehe:


World War II deaths (millions)

Soviet Union: 26
China: 15
Germany: 6.9
Poland: 5.9
Japan: 2.5
India: 1.6
France: 0.6
UK: 0.45
US: 0.42

[Donald]

Sorry? When did the tories bail out the banking sector again?

Only I could have sworn that was a Labour Government that did that.

Oh Herbert no :-( youve been made to look a fool. Just like that thick clumsy cvnt Dianne Abbot. Why are all Labour supporters such dangerously stupid morons? You were my hero Herbert but its all ruined :((

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.

1. "You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn."

No. I'm equating your comments about gambling the econ with Brexit and your comments about principle with Momentum. Nothing more.

2. "He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear "

So JC was PM when we voted for a referendum which risked the City's passporting rights and Eurobond trade? Must have missed that.

3. Last para. You're preaching to the converted, mate. I joined Lab to kick the Bearded Commie Cünt out and get us back to lovely econ-growth-and-strong-welfare-state centre-left normality. I hate the cünt more than you do. Never used FB but had 3 log ins banned from his page in 3 days, just for listing polling data.

[Peter]

Mind you, I was looking at these Spectator Index figures on deaths in the war and thinking we played it quite cannily, really.

Thanks Russia, you dozy cünts. :hehe:

Just brings home the fact that the eastern front made the western front look like a tea party. The russians dont **** about when it comes to stuff like this- kill everyone, including your own. Adolf should have kept well away from them.

Not that I am trying to help Hitler, you understand :)

[Burney]

1. "You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn."

No. I'm equating your comments about gambling the econ with Brexit and your comments about principle with Momentum. Nothing more.

2. "He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear "

So JC was PM when we voted for a referendum which risked the City's passporting rights and Eurobond trade? Must have missed that.

3. Last para. You're preaching to the converted, mate. I joined Lab to kick the Bearded Commie Cünt out and get us back to lovely econ-growth-and-strong-welfare-state centre-left normality. I hate the cünt more than you do. Never used FB but had 3 log ins banned from his page in 3 days, just for listing polling data.

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

[Sir C]

Just brings home the fact that the eastern front made the western front look like a tea party. The russians dont **** about when it comes to stuff like this- kill everyone, including your own. Adolf should have kept well away from them.

Not that I am trying to help Hitler, you understand :)

There was plenty of fighting on the western front which was just as vicious as anything seen on the eastern; indeed, soldiers of SS Division "Das Reich" rated the paras at Arnhem as the hardest, most committed troops they encountered anywhere in the war. Read about the campaign in the Bocage, or the battle for Monte Camino... it was no tea party. Far from it. The numbers were simply greater on the eastern front and the campaign longer.

[Burney]

Just brings home the fact that the eastern front made the western front look like a tea party. The russians dont **** about when it comes to stuff like this- kill everyone, including your own. Adolf should have kept well away from them.

Not that I am trying to help Hitler, you understand :)

To be fair, it also tells you how monstrously incompetent the Russians were - as well as being utterly callous with regard to human life, of course. All in all, though, us getting out of six years of that shïtshow with fewer than half a million dead is pretty good going, I reckon.

Shame about India, mind. Sorry about that, lads. :-(

[Peter]

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

Hey.... you dont stop watching Arsenal just because you want WENGER OUT!!!!

I voted Labour and will do so again, despite the beardy little ****.

[Burney]

There was plenty of fighting on the western front which was just as vicious as anything seen on the eastern; indeed, soldiers of SS Division "Das Reich" rated the paras at Arnhem as the hardest, most committed troops they encountered anywhere in the war. Read about the campaign in the Bocage, or the battle for Monte Camino... it was no tea party. Far from it. The numbers were simply greater on the eastern front and the campaign longer.

:nod: In fact, during the battle for Normandy, casualty rates exceeded those on the Eastern Front.

[Burney]

Hey.... you dont stop watching Arsenal just because you want WENGER OUT!!!!

I voted Labour and will do so again, despite the beardy little ****.

Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS! :banghead:

Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?

[Sir C]

Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS! :banghead:

Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?

What about thon maniac Soubry? I'd rather vote for Corbyn. (I wouldn't.)

[Peter]

To be fair, it also tells you how monstrously incompetent the Russians were - as well as being utterly callous with regard to human life, of course. All in all, though, us getting out of six years of that shïtshow with fewer than half a million dead is pretty good going, I reckon.

Shame about India, mind. Sorry about that, lads. :-(

We undertook to defend our empire from the sea. At no point did the prospect of marauding Japs come in for discussion.

Obviously, its very sad and all that but what can you do. We sent our chaps out, we did our best, despite having Gerry knocking on our door.

For me, the Russians are the only genuinely terrifying nation on earth. You just dont want to end up on the opposite side of them and you DEFINITELY dont want to invade. Never ends well.....

[Peter]

Yes. BUT BY DOING SO YOU KEEP HIM IN, FFS! :banghead:

Put it this way: if - say - Nicky Morgan became Tory leader, they could kiss my vote goodbye. No amount of tribalism could convince me to vote for such a person. Why would you not feel the same about Corbyn?

Principle, b. I vote for the party, not the leader.

[Burney]

What about thon maniac Soubry? I'd rather vote for Corbyn. (I wouldn't.)

Exactly. I said Morgan because that was more realistic.

I'm pretty convinced Soubry is *actually* mad. Mind you, I'm increasingly wondering if Brexit has driven a lot of our political class mad or simply revealed that they were mad all along.

[Burney]

We undertook to defend our empire from the sea. At no point did the prospect of marauding Japs come in for discussion.

Obviously, its very sad and all that but what can you do. We sent our chaps out, we did our best, despite having Gerry knocking on our door.

For me, the Russians are the only genuinely terrifying nation on earth. You just dont want to end up on the opposite side of them and you DEFINITELY dont want to invade. Never ends well.....

Generally speaking, they're like India at cricket: almost invincible on their own wickets, but terrible away from home. Did alright in the latter stages of WWII, but that was with vast amounts of US and British mechanised and logistical support. Left to their own devices, they'd probably have fücked it up.

[Burney]

Principle, b. I vote for the party, not the leader.

That's not principle, p. Indeed, if the party's principles change and you don't, it is the opposite of principle.

[Peter]

Generally speaking, they're like India at cricket: almost invincible on their own wickets, but terrible away from home. Did alright in the latter stages of WWII, but that was with vast amounts of US and British mechanised and logistical support. Left to their own devices, they'd probably have fücked it up.

They were also following on the trail of a defeated army which is vastly different from invading.

[Peter]

That's not principle, p. Indeed, if the party's principles change and you don't, it is the opposite of principle.

The core values and the mission never change. Policy is not principle, its the means. Its the ends I vote for.

[Burney]

They were also following on the trail of a defeated army which is vastly different from invading.

They also wasted a grotesque number of their soldiers' lives in that campaign in their unseemly haste to get as much of Germany as they could. Profligate doesn't come into it.

[Peter]

They also wasted a grotesque number of their soldiers' lives in that campaign in their unseemly haste to get as much of Germany as they could. Profligate doesn't come into it.

Right, but as discussed they dont care about that. As long as they have the numbers to replace them, and they always do, the deaths dont even register as a cost.

Strange and sinister creature, the russian. You cannot trust him..........

[Burney]

The core values and the mission never change. Policy is not principle, its the means. Its the ends I vote for.

The ends in this being Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Clause 4 in full effect?

Jesus wept, p. :-(

[Peter]

The ends in this being Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Clause 4 in full effect?

Jesus wept, p. :-(

Wont be as bad as you fear, b. Its McDonnell you want to watch out for. Corbyn is a picnic compared to him. Proper, old school sack of ****.

[Burney]

Wont be as bad as you fear, b. Its McDonnell you want to watch out for. Corbyn is a picnic compared to him. Proper, old school sack of ****.

Of course, were such a thing to happen, I would be forced to respect the result of the vote.

However, should certain others feel otherwise and - say - launch a military coup, I would unfortunately be helpless to stop them. :shrug:

[Ash]

Generally speaking, they're like India at cricket: almost invincible on their own wickets, but terrible away from home. Did alright in the latter stages of WWII, but that was with vast amounts of US and British mechanised and logistical support. Left to their own devices, they'd probably have fücked it up.

They've bowled well in Syria. They basically bowled ISIS out in the second innings for about 47. And we may not hear much about it but they've been playing well diplomatically too. The only power who have good relations with everyone in the ME.

[World's End Stella]

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

"After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either."

Er, so you think that your investments would have been safer under GB rule of law or Adolf and/or Willy?

Really, B?

(I'll look at the rest of your post now.)

[Burney]

"After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either."

Er, so you think that your investments would have been safer under GB rule of law or Adolf and/or Willy?

Really, B?

(I'll look at the rest of your post now.)

The point was we didn't have to go to war either time. We could have cut a deal and carried on in prosperity and peace - at least in the short term. Instead we took the principled decisions - and they cost us dear.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

I'll deal with the last bit before I get to the crux:

"I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it. "

I know her personally. She was one of the 50 that defied him to vote against Art 50, and signed the VoNC in him. I defended her at those hustings when the SWP Jez brigade wanted to lynch her.

I trust her, B.

Or are you saying that the GB/UK constitution is wrong to have representative democracy and we should go presidential?

By your logic, you should blame Finsbury Park voters for Iraq even though their MP, Jez Cünt, voted against it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

By that logic, you might as well equate it with any political decision where principle trumps economics. After all, declaring war on Germany twice in a century probably wasn't great for the economy either. Does that mean we oughtn't to have done it?

Cameron had to give a vote on the EU to the British people because he'd made a manifesto commitment to do so. The fact that it went the way it did is to me vindication of the fact that it was necessary. After all, is democratically intolerable to have a situation where more than half the country fundamentally disagree with how laws are passed over them, but are democratically denied any effective means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but to deny that he referendum was justified and necessary is simply undemocratic, I'm afraid. You didn't like it because it went the 'wrong' way, but that doesn't alter its legitimacy. To compare Cameron's decision and any potential negative consequences from it with Corbyn's avowed antipathy to our financial sector is dishonest.
On a side note, personally I'm proud that I live in a country that had the faith in its democracy to vote on two huge existential issues within a couple of years - issues that other nations (I'm looking at you, Spain) simply wouldn't dare touch with a bargepole. I think it's rather a good thing.

The problem I have with your final point is that I've heard many Labour supporters tell me how awful Corbyn is and how much they want rid of him. I've then asked them how they voted in the last election and they tell me they still voted Labour. If you're one of those, you might want to have a think about it.

The middle bit:

1. DC didn't have to call the referendum.
2. We have representative democracy, not direct.
3. I take your point that the result [could] suggest the vote needed to be called.
4. But if we have that, then let's have votes on every single issue - no. of nurses, and how much we pay them, and living wage, and mil spending etc etc etc.

If the moronic, GB public got what they wanted, we'd have the death penalty, work-houses for benefits, but a massive, expensive state paid for by the people in [I assume] your income bracket, B.

Careful what you wish for, imo.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The point was we didn't have to go to war either time. We could have cut a deal and carried on in prosperity and peace - at least in the short term. Instead we took the principled decisions - and they cost us dear.

Sorry, B, doing an MA in WW1 studies atm. *******s saying that about WW1.

You know about the September Prog, yes? You know that Brest-Litovsk proves they were serious, yes? And you know that the Peace Offer to Fr and Rus said 'The War at Sea continues', yes?

Everyone, every single ****ing historian for the last 50 years since Fritz Fischer, will tell you that had GB not fought, we'd ave been 100% ****ed either way.

10% - Fr/Rus win, we have no allies. 500 years of GB ForPol finished and India and the Med threatened.
90% - Hun win, then use the resources of the Europe to start War 2 vs us, which they talk about all the time in officlal docs.

Thought you'd read Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield. He deals with all this in chap.1

[Burney]

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

I have nothing against American veterans (most of whom were drafted, btw) at all and am equally grateful to all those who fought the Axis powers. I'm talking about Americans specifically talking as though their government acted out of anything other than self-interest in WWII. They stayed out of the war as long as they could and were happy for us to act as their proxies while hoovering up our financial reserves, taking our overseas possessions and dismantling our empire in payment for war materiel. Never forget that while Germany's war debts were cancelled, the Americans made us pay every single fücking nickel back. Grateful my àrse.

So for the record, I'm no more grateful to the USA than they ought to be to us for keeping the war alive for two long years while they sat on their hands.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

:nod: In fact, during the battle for Normandy, casualty rates exceeded those on the Eastern Front.

Still weren't a patch on Italy, though. At least according to my tutor. [I know jack **** about ww2 personally.]

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

Utter bøllocks. They sat back while the entire of western democracy was almost wiped out in 1940, and would have been a lot less secure with a Jap Asia, sorry RCPS. They only had to do something cos the Japs, moronically, thought they'd help us from Peral Harbour once they got on the march and they only fought in Europe cos Hitler declared war on them.

Yer average Gurkha, Sikh or Baluchi/Pathan has far more to be proud of than yer average Septic. Fact.

[Burney]

Sorry, B, doing an MA in WW1 studies atm. *******s saying that about WW1.

You know about the September Prog, yes? You know that Brest-Litovsk proves they were serious, yes? And you know that the Peace Offer to Fr and Rus said 'The War at Sea continues', yes?

Everyone, every single ****ing historian for the last 50 years since Fritz Fischer, will tell you that had GB not fought, we'd ave been 100% ****ed either way.

10% - Fr/Rus win, we have no allies. 500 years of GB ForPol finished and India and the Med threatened.
90% - Hun win, then use the resources of the Europe to start War 2 vs us, which they talk about all the time in officlal docs.

Thought you'd read Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield. He deals with all this in chap.1

Hence 'at least in the short term,'. Of course we'd have had to fight eventually. However, we needn't have done so when we did. Indeed, Germany didn't expect us to do so. Alternatively, we could quite easily have committed on a purely naval basis, blockaded Germany and - as was shown in the course of War itself - there was nothing they could have done about it. However, we didn't. We fought on the basis of principle. Germany had violated Belgian neutrality and on that principle, we went to war.

By the way, not every historian agrees. Niall Ferguson called our decision to intervene 'the biggest error in modern history'. He also points out that the argument that we had to intervene to secure the Channel ports is rather undermined by the fact that we had lived with a similar situation during the Napoleonic Wars whereby Europe was under his sway, the Channel Ports were all in his hands, but we didn't send land forces until we were properly prepared (which we blatantly weren't in 1914). Our navy was immensely powerful and dominant in 1914 - vastly more so, in fact than it was in 1800. We could easily have sat safely behind our navy and let Europe get on with slaughtering one another. We didn't, however, because of principle.

[Burney]

Still weren't a patch on Italy, though. At least according to my tutor. [I know jack **** about ww2 personally.]

Italy had its moments, but it didn't compare to the mincing machine of Normandy from June 6 until the closing of the Falaise Gap in August.

[World's End Stella]

Utter bøllocks. They sat back while the entire of western democracy was almost wiped out in 1940, and would have been a lot less secure with a Jap Asia, sorry RCPS. They only had to do something cos the Japs, moronically, thought they'd help us from Peral Harbour once they got on the march and they only fought in Europe cos Hitler declared war on them.

Yer average Gurkha, Sikh or Baluchi/Pathan has far more to be proud of than yer average Septic. Fact.

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

[Burney]

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

The sacrifice of the average American soldier may have been many things, WES, but exceptional it was not. Indeed, it's exactly that sort of self-aggrandising and frankly ignorant horseshît that Americans talk about WWII that gets everyone else's backs up.

In a war that killed around 25 million soldiers and more than 85 million people worldwide to describe America's sacrifice of fewer than half a million men as 'exceptional' displays a breathtaking degree of crassness.

[Sir C]

Which part of 'personal level' did you not understand? You think someone from Des Moines, Iowa who volunteered on Dec 8, 1941 and ended up fighting in Bastogne was party to or gave a toss about the politics or economics associated with when and how the Americans entered the war?

The 'greatest generation' refers to the sacrifice of the average American soldier, which was exceptional and without which the war would never have been won.

Wait, a dead American was 'exceptional' and therefore more of a sacrifice than a dead Brit, Frenchman or Russian?

Wow. Americans must be really great!

[Burney]

Wait, a dead American was 'exceptional' and therefore more of a sacrifice than a dead Brit, Frenchman or Russian?

Wow. Americans must be really great!

This must be what they call 'American exceptionalism' :rolleyes:

As you can see, I have taken him to task on this.

[World's End Stella]

The sacrifice of the average American soldier may have been many things, WES, but exceptional it was not. Indeed, it's exactly that sort of self-aggrandising and frankly ignorant horseshît that Americans talk about WWII that gets everyone else's backs up.

In a war that killed around 25 million soldiers and more than 85 million people worldwide to describe America's sacrifice of fewer than half a million men as 'exceptional' displays a breathtaking degree of crassness.

It was exceptional in that 16 million Americans served in a war which was fought thousands of miles from their shores and which didn't in any way threaten their homeland. More American soldiers died than British soldiers, now imagine that it was the American homeland that was attacked and Britain then joined in and suffered more causalities than the Americans did.

Are you honestly telling me that that wouldn't have been worth recognizing?

[Burney]

It was exceptional in that 16 million Americans served in a war which was fought thousands of miles from their shores and which didn't in any way threaten their homeland. More American soldiers died than British soldiers, now imagine that it was the American homeland that was attacked and Britain then joined in and suffered more causalities than the Americans did.

Are you honestly telling me that that wouldn't have been worth recognizing?

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Hence 'at least in the short term,'. Of course we'd have had to fight eventually. However, we needn't have done so when we did. Indeed, Germany didn't expect us to do so. Alternatively, we could quite easily have committed on a purely naval basis, blockaded Germany and - as was shown in the course of War itself - there was nothing they could have done about it. However, we didn't. We fought on the basis of principle. Germany had violated Belgian neutrality and on that principle, we went to war.

By the way, not every historian agrees. Niall Ferguson called our decision to intervene 'the biggest error in modern history'. He also points out that the argument that we had to intervene to secure the Channel ports is rather undermined by the fact that we had lived with a similar situation during the Napoleonic Wars whereby Europe was under his sway, the Channel Ports were all in his hands, but we didn't send land forces until we were properly prepared (which we blatantly weren't in 1914). Our navy was immensely powerful and dominant in 1914 - vastly more so, in fact than it was in 1800. We could easily have sat safely behind our navy and let Europe get on with slaughtering one another. We didn't, however, because of principle.

1. "Hence 'at least in the short term,'" Don't descend to semantics, mate. It was either fight while we still had friendly channel ports and a Dreadnought advantage or after Ger had taken both of those of us.

2. Nazi Naill's logic (assuming you've read the book) is "Och aye, I love the British empire. Perhaps if we hadn't fought, my beloved empire would have lasted longer and I could have walked around it. And anyway, I hate the Frogs. Och aye the noo."

While the economic analysis in the middle chapters is respected, the stuff on whether we should have fought or not is ignored by all historians and inane ranting drivel.

Ps, Berni, old chap. You know earlier you said you thought Brexit had made the political class go mad?

Erm, you do realise your arguing with a lefty, with you saying I'm wrong for wanting us to fight in the two WWs and you wanting to be all Quislingy. A bit "mad", no?

I can't believe we are arguing about GB's reasons for acting as we did in 1914 and 1939 (and 40). Bit surreal, no?

[redgunamo]

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

And because of the hounds obviously. Well said.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

Bingo. Spot on.

{As aside, the one yank on my class of six is over studying WW1 cos his "great granpappy" (I think) joined up with the Canadians in 1914. Gassed, apparently. 1917, I think he said. Poor chap. Y'see? Some Septics are good. Just not most of 'em.}

[Burney]

1. "Hence 'at least in the short term,'" Don't descend to semantics, mate. It was either fight while we still had friendly channel ports and a Dreadnought advantage or after Ger had taken both of those of us.

2. Nazi Naill's logic (assuming you've read the book) is "Och aye, I love the British empire. Perhaps if we hadn't fought, my beloved empire would have lasted longer and I could have walked around it. And anyway, I hate the Frogs. Och aye the noo."

While the economic analysis in the middle chapters is respected, the stuff on whether we should have fought or not is ignored by all historians and inane ranting drivel.

Ps, Berni, old chap. You know earlier you said you thought Brexit had made the political class go mad?

Erm, you do realise your arguing with a lefty, with you saying I'm wrong for wanting us to fight in the two WWs and you wanting to be all Quislingy. A bit "mad", no?

I can't believe we are arguing about GB's reasons for acting as we did in 1914 and 1939 (and 40). Bit surreal, no?

I'm not arguing we were wrong to fight in 1914 and 1940, though. You seem to have forgotten the initial point - which was that I was arguing that correct principled decisions sometimes come at an economic cost. Like Brexit.

Also, dismissing Ferguson as a 'Nazi' and just directing ad hom crap at him is cheap rubbish that you're doing because he's a conservative historian. He is not 'dismissed'. If he were, he wouldn't have his chair at that notable academic backwater...errr...Harvard, would he? The fact people don't like him is not the same as him not being respected. It simply means he doesn't do the cozy consensus thing that second- and third-rate academic brains like to use as cover for their intellectual inadequacies.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I'm not arguing we were wrong to fight in 1914 and 1940, though. You seem to have forgotten the initial point - which was that I was arguing that correct principled decisions sometimes come at an economic cost. Like Brexit.

Also, dismissing Ferguson as a 'Nazi' and just directing ad hom crap at him is cheap rubbish that you're doing because he's a conservative historian. He is not 'dismissed'. If he were, he wouldn't have his chair at that notable academic backwater...errr...Harvard, would he? The fact people don't like him is not the same as him not being respected. It simply means he doesn't do the cozy consensus thing that second- and third-rate academic brains like to use as cover for their intellectual inadequacies.

Go to google scholar or whatever. Check the citations. All the stuff from the middle chapters comparing the GDP per cap spend to kill an enemy soldier in GB is widely cited. The stuff on whether we should fight or not is ignored as drivel.

And NB, Mil hist, in academia, isn't like imperial or cultural history. This isn't the usual lefty schtick. All of them have either served, worked with local regiments or at the RUSI etc.

This lot call a spade a spade. {It's heaven to be somewhere so un-PC}

But all say his arguments against fighting are *******s.

But then, he's not an expert, is he? He wrote one book. Look at all his other stuff. He started as an economist, then imperial historian then **** knows. But he heasn't dedicated his life to it like the proper lads.

Which is why he fücked off. He got laughed across the Atlantic. Sorry, but read something by any of the Fischer school. They've won this argument after 50+ years. Accepted consensus now, mate.

[World's End Stella]

Don't give me all that shït. First of all, nearly half of America's dead were in the Pacific theatre - a war that was fought by America purely to defend its own immediate economic and strategic interests following an attack by Japan on American soil. Second, the US fought Germany not because Britain was attacked (that happened two years earlier), but because a/ Germany declared war on the USA and b/ because it was in the US's strategic interest to combat the threat of Germany as far away from its homeland as it possibly could.

All this guff about innocent farm boys travelling thousands of miles to defend freedom is so much böllocks, I'm afraid. Most GIs were drafted (the draft had been in place since 1940) and if they were that starry-eyed and idealistic about fighting fascism they'd had two years when they could have joined British and Canadian forces in order to do so (as a number of Americans did). Like all soldiers, they were there because they were there.

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

[Burney]

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

What has this to do with Canada? As far as I'm aware, Canada and the USA are two very different countries. Canada stood shoulder to shoulder with the United Kingdom in both wars from day one and asked nothing in return. This discussion is nothing to do with Canada's role in either war.

And I've already said that on a personal level I'm grateful to all those who fought against the Axis. However, I do not find anything exceptional about the role of American soldiers and find the grandstanding from modern-day Americans about their role in the war to be boastful, ignorant and irksome.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

Where have I ever criticised the Canadians, mate?

I've just written 4k words on what they did in the Hundred Days 1918, where they were our stormtroops and consequently the best troops on the planet, and I said the yank in our class is here cos his granddad joined the Canadians in 1914 and was gassed in 1917.

We (B and I and others) were taking issue that the fact that Brad from Bumfück, Alabama was drafted doesn't make him any better than Mr Brit, or M. Frog or Ruskie or Canadian or Convict or Sikh/Gurkha/Pathan.

But silly me, the Septics are better than all those races so they iz special and the above izn't.

[Burney]

Where have I ever criticised the Canadians, mate?

I've just written 4k words on what they did in the Hundred Days 1918, where they were our stormtroops and consequently the best troops on the planet, and I said the yank in our class is here cos his granddad joined the Canadians in 1914 and was gassed in 1917.

We (B and I and others) were taking issue that the fact that Brad from Bumfück, Alabama was drafted doesn't make him any better than Mr Brit, or M. Frog or Ruskie or Canadian or Convict or Sikh/Gurkha/Pathan.

But silly me, the Septics are better than all those races so they iz special and the above izn't.

:nod: Consistently the best troops in the British Army throughout the First World War. Unfortunately for them, this meant they were usually used to spearhead any attack.

[Peter]

The greatest generation argument is made at the personal level, not the national/political/economical level.

You are quite right that American industry did fantastically well, very often cynically, out of the war. That doesn't change the fact that millions of young, American men volunteered to serve in order to resolve issues in Europe and the Pacific that had little effect on their every day lives or the future security of their country.

The Americans, quite rightly, revere the contribution of that generation of Americans and you as a Brit should be equally grateful. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you never would have won the war without them.

Hang on... they didnt volunteer, they were conscripted. Lets be clear about that. More important
Y, they steered well ****ing clear of the war precisely until the security of their country was threatened.

I am not America bashing here, but lets at least tell the truth.

[Peter]

I recall with fondness my father telling me how quickly the publican in 1969 extended his hand across the bar and thanked him for our country's contribution to the war effort in World War 2 when he discovered that my father was not only Canadian but a member of the Canadian military. The emotion felt very genuine and my father, despite not having served in the war, was genuinely touched.

I'd like to think that his view was representative of the public generally in the UK, as opposed to you and Ganpati who would have refused to offer your hand at all and would have said something like 'yeah but you only helped out because your country told you to and you did pretty well out of the war anyway'.

It is hardly news to discover that nations act in their own interest and their own defence. Nor is it a criticism from any on here.

The criticism is of this grandstanding notion of something altogether more noble and self sacrificial. We are all grateful the USA joined the war and it wouldn't have been won on the western front without them, or in the Pacific theatre.

We in Britain make a similar mistake with our heroism. I don't doubt the heroism of our soldiers, the bravery of every day Londoners facing the blitz....but compared to what people in other parts of the world went through during that war it is a day at the ****ing beach.

Its a sense of perspective that is needed. The yanks lack it, being a young and rather immature country with so little knowledge of the world.

Great bunch of lads though, all the same.

[redgunamo]

CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

Right. That's why they finally got around to electing Donald Trump, I suppose.