Re: America

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Alex Heney, Sep 6, 2010.

  1. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    <> wrote:

    >I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >
    >I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people slagging off
    >Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they were fighting for
    >Britain in WW2.
    >


    You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.

    Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.

    As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    attacked at Pearl Harbour.


    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing.
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alex Heney

    chuckcar Guest

    Alex Heney <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >>British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >>
    >>I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    >>slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
    >>were fighting for Britain in WW2.
    >>

    >
    > You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >
    > Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >
    > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    > attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >
    >

    They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    before pearl harbour. They just didn't send soldiers under their flags.
    That's how the Battle of the Atlantic started - fighting uboats trying
    to sink those convoys.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Sep 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alex Heney

    Jethro Guest

    On 6 Sep, 22:12, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    > >British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    >
    > >I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people slagging off
    > >Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they were fighting for
    > >Britain in WW2.

    >
    > You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >
    > Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >
    > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    > attacked at Pearl Harbour.


    It was my understanding that despite being "neutral" the US (thanks to
    FDR) did supply aid and assistance to the UK. You can argue about the
    fact they charged us for it, but they didn't have to do it, and FDR
    faced a backlash from his own party for not staying out of it.
    Jethro, Sep 7, 2010
    #3
  4. On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:12:01 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:

    > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    > attacked at Pearl Harbour.


    For some non-standard value of "resolutely".

    Genuine question: was that nonsense some revisionist version of history from
    a self-professed historian or just ordinary ignorant nonsense?

    The Neutrality Act of the 1930s was ended by the Destroyers for Bases
    Agreement of 1940 and then the Lend Lease Act of 11 March 1941, later
    extended to China in October 1940. The overt ending of any prior pretence of
    neutrality was made quite independently of that attack on 7 December 1940,
    except perhaps for conspiracy nutters.

    Tony
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 7, 2010
    #4
  5. On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:25:20 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    <> wrote:

    > attack on 7 December 1940,


    Sorry for obvious typo - 7 December 1941.

    Tony
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Alex Heney

    Mr Pounder Guest

    "Alex Heney" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >>British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >>
    >>I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people slagging
    >>off
    >>Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they were fighting for
    >>Britain in WW2.
    >>

    >
    > You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >
    > Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >
    > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    > attacked at Pearl Harbour.


    I lived in Australia during Viet Nam, the press supported America.
    So you see, there are other ways of passing opinions apart from the
    internet.
    Yeah, okay, fighting with Britain. Is that better? Does that make you happy?
    As for Pearl Harbour, don't insult my intelligence.

    Mr Pounder
    >
    >
    Mr Pounder, Sep 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Alex Heney

    harry Guest

    On 7 Sep, 04:07, chuckcar <> wrote:
    > Alex Heney <> wrote innews::
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >>I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    > >>British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    >
    > >>I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    > >>slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
    > >>were fighting for Britain in WW2.

    >
    > > You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.

    >
    > > Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.

    >
    > > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    > > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    > > attacked at Pearl Harbour.

    >
    > They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    > before pearl harbour. They just didn't send soldiers under their flags.
    > That's how the Battle of the Atlantic started - fighting uboats trying
    > to sink those convoys.
    >
    > --
    > (setq (chuck nil)  car(chuck) )- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    You sold us weapoons, not sent. We have only recently finished paying
    off the debt. And the interest charged.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm
    harry, Sep 7, 2010
    #7
  8. Alex Heney

    chuckcar Guest

    harry <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 7 Sep, 04:07, chuckcar <> wrote:
    >> Alex Heney <> wrote
    >> innews:m4ma86dklqo33jp1e261dii59msljl

    > :
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    >> > <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths
    >> >>of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    >>
    >> >>I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    >> >>slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst
    >> >>they were fighting for Britain in WW2.

    >>
    >> > You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.

    >>
    >> > Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.

    >>
    >> > As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >> > stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
    >> > were attacked at Pearl Harbour.

    >>
    >> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >> before pearl harbour. They just didn't send soldiers under their
    >> flags. That's how the Battle of the Atlantic started - fighting
    >> uboats trying to sink those convoys.
    >>

    >
    > You sold us weapoons, not sent. We have only recently finished paying
    > off the debt. And the interest charged.
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm
    >

    Not me. I don't live in the US.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Sep 7, 2010
    #8
  9. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >>>British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >>>
    >>>I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    >>>slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
    >>>were fighting for Britain in WW2.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >>
    >> Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >>
    >> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>
    >>

    >They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >before pearl harbour.


    With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 7, 2010
    #9
  10. On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >>>> British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    >>>> slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
    >>>> were fighting for Britain in WW2.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >>>
    >>> Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >>>
    >>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >> before pearl harbour.

    >
    > With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.


    Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
    "insufficiently generous"?

    Tony
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 8, 2010
    #10
  11. Alex Heney

    chuckcar Guest

    Alex Heney <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>before pearl harbour.

    >
    > With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.



    Probably the only way the bi-praty system in the US could get the arms
    to you.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Sep 8, 2010
    #11
  12. On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:56:30 +0100, ®i©ardo <> wrote:

    > On 08/09/2010 14:03, chuckcar wrote:
    >> Alex Heney<> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Alex Heney<> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>
    >>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

    >>
    >>
    >> Probably the only way the bi-praty system in the US could get the arms
    >> to you.
    >>
    >> --
    >> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

    >
    > Well, it was "cash on demand" prior to the "lease-lend" coming into play.


    The prior regime of "cash and carry" was gold bullion on demand.

    Tony
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 8, 2010
    #12
  13. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:32:03 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've just got yet another chainmail blaming America for the deaths of
    >>>>> British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am not an historian, but I have never of the American people
    >>>>> slagging off Britain for the deaths of American soldiers whilst they
    >>>>> were fighting for Britain in WW2.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You certainly would have done if the internet had existed then.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even though they never were fighting for Britain, of course.
    >>>>
    >>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>> before pearl harbour.

    >>
    >> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

    >
    >Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
    >"insufficiently generous"?


    No.
    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    Boy: A noise with dirt on it.
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 8, 2010
    #13
  14. On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>
    >>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.

    >>
    >> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
    >> "insufficiently generous"?

    >
    > No.


    You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
    truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over truth.

    Tony
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 9, 2010
    #14
  15. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>> news::
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>
    >>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>
    >>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
    >>> "insufficiently generous"?

    >>
    >> No.

    >
    >You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
    >truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over truth.
    >


    I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    to the previous poster.
    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    Earth is 98% full... please delete anyone you can.
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 9, 2010
    #15
  16. Alex Heney

    Mr Pounder Guest

    "Anthony R. Gold" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>>>> news::
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
    >>>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
    >>> where
    >>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over
    >>> truth.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    >> to the previous poster.

    >
    > You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
    > provide
    > the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
    > did
    > offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
    > the
    > factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
    >
    > Tony


    He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
    I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.
    Pearl Harbour ffs.
    My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
    My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they were
    fighting *with* this country.
    This point has not been addressed.

    Mr Pounder


    >
    Mr Pounder, Sep 10, 2010
    #16
  17. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:15:06 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Anthony R. Gold" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>> news::
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
    >>>>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
    >>>> where
    >>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over
    >>>> truth.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    >>> to the previous poster.

    >>
    >> You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
    >> provide
    >> the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
    >> did
    >> offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
    >> the
    >> factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
    >>
    >> Tony

    >
    >He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
    >I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.


    So why did you say you are "no historian"?

    >Pearl Harbour ffs.
    >My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
    >My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they were
    >fighting *with* this country.
    >This point has not been addressed.
    >


    A lot of that was down to different times, I think.

    People just didn't criticise authority to anything like the extent
    they do now, and tended to assume hat their government were at least
    trying to do the best thing for the population.
    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 10, 2010
    #17
  18. Alex Heney

    Alex Heney Guest

    On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:26:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>>>> news::
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they were
    >>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one of
    >>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word, where
    >>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over truth.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    >> to the previous poster.

    >
    >You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to provide
    >the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you did
    >offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to the
    >factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
    >


    There is hardly anything in that paragraph which is correct.

    You may have read that implication into what I wrote, but I didn't
    particularly intend it.

    I certainly did not give any "erroneous view", nor has anybody shown
    anything to contradict it.

    They have shown that there may be some argument as to what constitutes
    "neutrality", and that for some definitions of it, the USA could not
    be described as being neutral.

    For other definitions, they certainly were.

    Now if you want to point me to anything showing they were taking an
    active part in the war prior to "officially" entering it, I am open to
    persuasion.

    But lending/selling supplies at fairly high interest rates does not
    count as taking an active part to me.
    --
    Alex Heney, Global Villager
    Computer - A device designed to speed and automate errors.
    To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
    Alex Heney, Sep 10, 2010
    #18
  19. Alex Heney

    Mr Pounder Guest

    "Alex Heney" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:15:06 +0100, "Mr Pounder"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Anthony R. Gold" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>> news::
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
    >>>>>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for
    >>>>>>>>> years
    >>>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to
    >>>>>>> one
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
    >>>>> where
    >>>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over
    >>>>> truth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    >>>> to the previous poster.
    >>>
    >>> You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
    >>> provide
    >>> the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
    >>> did
    >>> offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed
    >>> to
    >>> the
    >>> factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
    >>>
    >>> Tony

    >>
    >>He's has always been a plonker and has always disliked me.
    >>I have forgotten more about WW2 than he will ever know.

    >
    > So why did you say you are "no historian"?


    Because I am not one.
    >
    >>Pearl Harbour ffs.
    >>My OP could have been phased better, I did correct it in a later posting.
    >>My point was the apparent lack of bad feeling from America whilst they
    >>were
    >>fighting *with* this country.
    >>This point has not been addressed.
    >>

    >
    > A lot of that was down to different times, I think.


    Viet Nam was not a hundred years later.
    Australia did not slag of the USA for fighting with them; America had a lot
    to say though.
    >
    > People just didn't criticise authority to anything like the extent
    > they do now, and tended to assume hat their government were at least
    > trying to do the best thing for the population.


    My old man was there, he criticised a lot.

    Mr Pounder
    >
    Mr Pounder, Sep 10, 2010
    #19
  20. Alex Heney

    Mr Pounder Guest

    "Alex Heney" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:26:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:59 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:56 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:13:11 +0100, Alex Heney <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:44:45 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:19:53 +0100, Alex Heney <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Alex Heney <> wrote in
    >>>>>>>> news::
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As you are "no historian", perhaps you weren't aware that the USA
    >>>>>>>>> stayed resolutely neutral, and did not enter the war until they
    >>>>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>>>> attacked at Pearl Harbour.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They certainly we *not* neutral. They supplied arms to GB for years
    >>>>>>>> before pearl harbour.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> With huge charges and interest that we took many years to pay back.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are changing your previous bogus claim of "resolutely neutral" to one
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> "insufficiently generous"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> You use the word "historian" in the David Irving sense of the word,
    >>>> where
    >>>> truthiness (acknowledgement: Stephen Colbert's The Wørd) wins out over
    >>>> truth.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I didn't use the word "historian" in any sense except quoting it back
    >>> to the previous poster.

    >>
    >>You quoted that word back with the implication that you were going to
    >>provide
    >>the poster with accurate history instead of the erroneous view that you
    >>did
    >>offer and that you continue to cling to even after having been pointed to
    >>the
    >>factual background which contradicts your prejudices.
    >>

    >
    > There is hardly anything in that paragraph which is correct.
    >
    > You may have read that implication into what I wrote, but I didn't
    > particularly intend it.
    >
    > I certainly did not give any "erroneous view", nor has anybody shown
    > anything to contradict it.
    >
    > They have shown that there may be some argument as to what constitutes
    > "neutrality", and that for some definitions of it, the USA could not
    > be described as being neutral.
    >
    > For other definitions, they certainly were.
    >
    > Now if you want to point me to anything showing they were taking an
    > active part in the war prior to "officially" entering it, I am open to
    > persuasion.
    >
    > But lending/selling supplies at fairly high interest rates does not
    > count as taking an active part to me.
    > --
    > Alex Heney, Global Villager
    > Computer - A device designed to speed and automate errors.
    > To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


    Fair comment.
    But:
    Let us not forget that it was pants down as always Britain that declared war
    on Germany.
    Then the mercenaries moved in. We would have done it to them.

    Mr Pounder
    Mr Pounder, Sep 10, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. totsob
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,063
    Markus
    Oct 22, 2004
  2. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,915
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  3. Consultant

    Re: Animals in America

    Consultant, Feb 2, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    Consultant
    Feb 2, 2006
  4. Mr. 4X
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    414
    Mr. 4X
    Oct 27, 2003
  5. Guest

    Doctor Who In America

    Guest, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    819
    Brian H¹©
    Dec 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page