egafd.com

The Yanks need the equipment because they're shitty soldiers.
Our equipment is average, but our soldiers are the best trained, along with the Canadians.

?The Yanks need the equipment because they're shitty soldiers.?

Sam, once again you've opened your mouth without thinking. That was a very silly and unhelpful thing to say. Don't the words Meuse, Anzio, Monte Casino, Guadalcanal, Omaha Beach, Battle of the Bulge, Iowa Jima, Heartbreak Ridge and Khe Sanh mean anything to you?




















You have many interesting and rational views, Sam. So it saddens me when you tag onto some malevolent nutcases's Anti-American bandwagon and, (I believe), without thinking, make silly and offensive statements like that. There has been more than one occasion when the British people have been grateful that those "shitty soldiers" have been there to stand shoulder to shoulder alongside them.



Officer Dibble

Yes, I was a little disrespectful, I admit.

The Yanks helped liberate France and other European nations. They didn't liberate Britain, which is what they actually believe they did. We'd already won air superiority, invented radar, and broken Nazi codes, -along with Russia starting to push the Nazi's back- before America bothered to help.

Yes they supplied us with weapons and food, but that was only for selfish reasons, those being that Eisenhower didn't want to fight a war alone on two fronts (Japan to the West and the Nazi's to the East), they didn't want Russia to get their hands on Nazi scientists, and they wanted British technology in the form of good air & sea radar. To top it off, they made Britain pay for all the help we got, -thus they just about bankrupted us- and got British land in the form of military and air bases (and they still have).

It's no coincidence that America's technological advances, and wealth boomed in the early 50's while Britain was bankrupt with 95% of the population on rations.

I'm not anti, or pro American. They funded us to keep the Nazi's at bay, but it was only a loan really, with interest. I see through this 'we are the worlds saviours' shit, that's all.

This might be worth noting on the lend lease front:



As for the original point, re the marines, it's incredible that, after all they've been put through, they can still demonstrate such bravery and comradeship. On leave, some members of HM Forces can be a right pain. But boy do we owe them!

"They didn't liberate Britain, which is what they actually believe they did."

Where does it say that they believe they "liberated" Britain and (by extension) expelled Nazi occupiers? Which particular Americans believe this - the Military, The State Department or a group of UFO spotters in Nebraska?



"We'd already won air superiority, invented radar, and broken Nazi codes,"

Oh, so are you now suggesting we didn?t really need their help because we'd already got Adolph on the ropes and both he and the entire Wehrmacht would have gone down in the next round of bombing?



?Yes they supplied us with weapons and food, but that was only for selfish reasons, those being that Eisenhower didn't want to fight a war alone on two fronts (Japan to the West and the Nazi's to the East), they didn't want Russia to get their hands on Nazi scientists, and they wanted British technology in the form of good air & sea radar.?

Well, (slaps his thigh) there?s a novelty ? a government looking after their own best interests and the interests of their country. How terribly vulgar. I?ll tell you what, Sam, it?s a good job no other countries ever take a similar selfish stance, isn?t it?



?To top it off, they made Britain pay for all the help we got, -thus they just about bankrupted us- and got British land in the form of military and air bases (and they still have).?

So if your best pal found himself in a stop of bother and needed to borrow 10k to see him through - on the understanding that he would sort you out as soon as he got back on his feet, you wouldn?t expect him to pay it back?...Hmmmm? Hey, can I be you pal, Sam?



?I see through this 'we are the worlds saviours' shit, that's all.?

Do you really see through it, Sam? Or are you, in this instance, being ?right on'? Do you (unconsciously maybe) feel that taking this stance will give you some street cred with your privileged middleclass uni pals? Are you just adopting the ?received wisdom? of your peer group? It?s always cosy to feel part of ?the group?, isn?t it? To have something to share with them ? be it a haircut, pop record, daft hat or even a pretentious political viewpoint?

Oh, I?m well aware that the Americans are no Angels and have their own interests at heart. But those interests, the prosperity and the western way of life, are pretty much our interests. Consequently, we should stop being silly and stop wasting time with idiotic sniping and bickering. Instead we should take a positive attitude to our big pal and, in the way of the little pal, convince him that all this pro-life, creationist, religious dogma is a load of old cack, and that what we should really be on with is cloning, stem cell research, designer babies and the whole shooting match ? before the Chinese beat us to it. Sorted.



Officer Dibble

[quote]Where does it say that they believe they "liberated" Britain and (by extension) expelled Nazi occupiers? Which particular Americans believe this - the Military, The State Department or a group of UFO spotters in Nebraska?[/quote]

Damn! Only last week 'Have I got news for you' were talking about a US military official -top knob he was- from the White House. He was slagging off the Brits saying how America had bailed us out of 2 World Wars, and how we should learn to brush our teeth properly. Quite charming really.

[quote]Oh, so are you now suggesting we didn?t really need their help because we'd already got Adolph on the ropes and both he and the entire Wehrmacht would have gone down in the next round of bombing?[/quote]

Nope, never said that at all. We'd have never got Hitler out of France alone, but Hitlers invasion plans of Britain fell flat didn't they? He got the right hump about it too. The Americans weren't helping then.

[quote]So if your best pal found himself in a stop of bother and needed to borrow 10k to see him through - on the understanding that he would sort you out as soon as he got back on his feet, you wouldn?t expect him to pay it back?...Hmmmm? Hey, can I be you pal, Sam?[/quote]

Lending him 10k is a crap analogy. More like me helping a mate who can't get to the Asda because his neighbour's a bit retarded and keeps putting his window through. I fetch his shopping, and help him break his neighbours legs to teach him a lesson. I then charge my mate 5k for the help, get a room 'rent free' in his house for 60 years, and I've control of the remote for his Sky Digital. Sounds like a piss take to me.

Defeating the Nazis was in their interests as much as ours. America would have been screwed both ways if Hitler had taken control of the whole of Europe. Hey, since 9/11 was an American problem, should we be billing them for the Afghan war? What of Iraq? (by the way, check out other posts on this subject. I supported both wars, before you go on a 'Guardian reading, lefty looney, middle class' rage!)

You can be my pal if you want, but remind me never to owe you a favour if you're taking the Yanks stance. !wink!

As for the 'middle class' jibe, give it a rest, I nearly burnt my bollocks by spilling my drink when I read that. The only middle class person I know is my fucking GP, and I've not seen him since I was 17, thankfully.

I don't mind holding hands with 'our big pals' over the pond, but I'm confident enough not to get overly thankful, and 'starry eyed' over them either.

As for feeling cozy in groups?.....well yes, but only groups that involve lots of naked, glamorous, busty and curvy women, Mr Dibble. All other groups I can give or take really....

Sam, as usual, you have put commendable time and effort into your riposte, but sadly in content it is little more than bluster and obtusification. Maybe you should take up politics? I made my points in a succinct, pithy, and humorous manner. They still stand and I don?t have anything to add. So please forgive me if I don?t now spend the entire day pointlessly refuting every line of your reply. But I?ll leave you with some sage advice. Think before you speak, don?t leave yourself exposed, and try to make your posts a little more succinct ? you have a tendency to waffle and ramble on (maybe even loose yourself). This dissipates the effectiveness of the points you are trying to get over.

P.S. You can be my pal 10k or no 10k. Now, I?m off out for the day. See ya?.




Officer Dibble

Dibble remembers flying to Macho Grande...up the coast of Drambuie...

If there were awards to be handed out for "The most opinionated, selfsatisfied patronising git on this Forum" without a doubt you would wins handsdown Dribble.

Mart

I agree, I do waffle on a bit.

I guess the consequences for trying to cover every aspect of a topic -that are relevant to the discussion- are that I have a tendency to become long-winded and periphrastic, thereby my points become diffuse, and frustrating to collect together in a post.

Now that you've pointed out my weakness, -which backed up my worry of 'waffling'- I'm at least on the first steps of recovery! My points however, also stand, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mr Dibble.

Now how can I return this considerate, and salutary advice? I find your posts easy to read, -as you say- succinct, pretty knowledgeable, and most of all; humorous. You do however, tend to jump to expeditious, impetuous assumptions on the social standings of an individual. Be careful of this.

Adi?s!