RAF Jet Chases Russian Planes Away From UK


Locutus
#1
Two Russian bombers which flew close to UK airspace have been chased away by an RAF jet fighter.
The aircraft, believed to be Tupolev Tu-95 Bears, were spotted off the coast of northeast Scotland.
They were turned away from Britain when a Typhoon fighter was scrambled from RAF Leuchars in Fife.

Aircrew stationed at the base are on standby to intercept unidentified aircraft at a moment's notice.
Dutch fighter jets were also dispatched on Wednesday when the two Russian planes entered their airspace.


more


RAF Jet Chases Russian Planes Away From UK
 
Blackleaf
#2
Those bloody Russians are pushing it. If they want war, they can have it. The British just love fighting a nice war.
 
MHz
+1 / -1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Those bloody Russians are pushing it. If they want war, they can have it. The British just love fighting a nice war.

Considering how many of the ****ing things the Brits have caused it is a bit of an understatement. Tell me again how happy your countrymen were in WWII when you had about a weeks supply of food left. (when the needy were already on starvation rations and the 'leaders' were eating like hogs at the trough) Go ahead and try to claim Churchill was ever on a diet of any kind.

The two fighters that chased away a bomber would be the only two aircraft to survive, finding a new place to land will become a higher priority than what any Russian bombers are doing in the international air-space that has the Brits surrounded.

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvcOVOftOQ7Q

Last edited by MHz; Apr 24th, 2014 at 08:10 AM..
 
Blackleaf
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Considering how many of the ****ing things the Brits have caused it is a bit of an understatement.

Bugger off with your historically inaccurate, politcally correct codswallop.

Britain has, for centuries (like England before her), been a force for good in this world.

Quote:

Tell me again how happy your countrymen were in WWII when you had about a weeks supply of food left.

Fighting the Nazis on our own when everyone else had either been invaded, cowardly surrendered, or cowardly sitting on the sidelines.

Quote:

The two fighters that chased away a bomber would be the only two aircraft to survive

Yeah? And what have the Russians got in their rusty and poorly trained airforce that can challenge the might, technical sophistication and professionalism of the world's best airforce?

Quote:

finding a new place to land will become a higher priority than what any Russian bombers are doing in the international air-space that has the Brits surrounded.

All Britain has to do is nuke Russia, and then it'll be those Russkie planes looking for somewhere to land.
 
MHz
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Bugger off with your historically inaccurate, politcally correct codswallop.

Britain has, for centuries (like England before her), been a force for good in this world.

All Britain has to do is nuke Russia, and then it'll be those Russkie planes looking for somewhere to land.

Notice how the two bolded items conflict with each other, slavery is one of those 'good for the world' things isn't it, along with segregation and the rule of 1% over the 99% is also British thuggery isn't it? You sure you have enough bombs?

UK=94,060 sq mi
Russia=6,592,800 sq mi

You also need an education in your past as far as the 2 WW's go. I'm thinking the Rothschild left you out to dry because Lord Balfour added in some right for the Arabs when he made the promise to get the demanded area set aside for a 'special purpose', the end result of that is now just starting to unfold so spare me the 'Britain rules' anything type of hysteria you are experiencing. Russia had it's moment when they realized they wouldn't be ruling the world,

Benjamin Freedman39s 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel Complete - YouTube



Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


Yeah? And what have the Russians got in their rusty and poorly trained airforce that can challenge the might, technical sophistication and professionalism of the world's best airforce?

.

Take your pick from a multitude of newer weapons systems, all you have to do is enter Russia and take them.
newest russian waepons - YouTube (external - login to view)
 
Blackleaf
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Notice how the two bolded items conflict with each other, slavery is one of those 'good for the world' things isn't it

Why single out the British over slavery? Many countries practised it at the time when it wasn't seen as wrong (you're one of thos liberal idiots who try to superimpose today's lefty, PC values onto those very different values of the past).

Britain was the first country in the world to permanently abolish it in 1807, whereas it was still practised in North America until the 1860s. Many of the signatories to the Yank Declaration of Independence were slavers. I bet the Yanks are proud.


Quote:

along with segregation and the rule of 1% over the 99% is also British thuggery isn't it?

Only to the politically correct imbeciles like you.

Quote:

You sure you have enough bombs?

UK=94,060 sq mi
Russia=6,592,800 sq mi

We've got plenty of nukes. It won't take many to wipe out a mere 143 million people.

Quote:

You also need an education in your past as far as the 2 WW's go.

No, I don't. You do. Your grasp of this era in world history, like many of your fellow countrymen, is rather feeble.


Quote:

Take your pick from a multitude of newer weapons systems, all you have to do is enter Russia and take them.
newest russian waepons - YouTube (external - login to view)

Oh, they look scary. That'll get the British - who have the world's most hi-tech armed forces after the Americans, described as "exquisite" by the Chief of the Defence Staff and which are becoming even more hi-tech - quaking in fear.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#7
143 000 000 must be on the low end you are prepared to kill.
 
Blackleaf
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

143 000 000 must be on the low end you are prepared to kill.


Depends. If anyone joins the war on Russia's side then I'd have no problem with Britain wiping out its population, either. Whatever it takes to win.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Depends. If anyone joins the war on Russia's side then I'd have no problem with Britain wiping out its population, either. Whatever it takes to win.

Just checking your sanity. Doctor, bring the jacket!
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Just checking your sanity. Doctor, bring the jacket!

His fez is too tight and his nickers are too cramping his style.
 
MHz
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Only to the politically correct imbeciles like you.
We've got plenty of nukes. It won't take many to wipe out a mere 143 million people.
.

You would wipe out 143 million people (over what BTW) yet I'm the imbecile. I really hope sterility runs in your family, truly.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

His fez is too tight and his nickers are too cramping his style.

You said the very same thing you stupid fuk.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Depends. If anyone joins the war on Russia's side then I'd have no problem with Britain wiping out its population, either. Whatever it takes to win.

China, ... you and the West lose big time, never to rise again. Being in the West I find that a better option that putting the world through another Britiania rules. Really dividing India and Pakistan with a border that would cause eternal conflict is one of your nicer moves and it would give Attila the Hun a reason to do a face-palm.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Why single out the British over slavery? Many countries practised it at the time when it wasn't seen as wrong (you're one of thos liberal idiots who try to superimpose today's lefty, PC values onto those very different values of the past).

Britain was the first country in the world to permanently abolish it in 1807, whereas it was still practised in North America until the 1860s. Many of the signatories to the Yank Declaration of Independence were slavers. I bet the Yanks are proud.

Only to the politically correct imbeciles like you.

We've got plenty of nukes. It won't take many to wipe out a mere 143 million people.

No, I don't. You do. Your grasp of this era in world history, like many of your fellow countrymen, is rather feeble.

Oh, they look scary. That'll get the British - who have the world's most hi-tech armed forces after the Americans, described as "exquisite" by the Chief of the Defence Staff and which are becoming even more hi-tech - quaking in fear.

I didn't indicate they were the only ones that practiced that despicable act. Abolished it in favor of company town where the wages could only be spent at the 'Company Store' and it was always $5 less than a person needed to live in poverty until the next payday while the owners wre like hogs at a trough that was always full at the expense of the workers. Check with you local coal-miners and see if they would accept the condition the 'new and improved western controlled Govt in the Ukraine is imposing (trying to) on it's coal miners when they are alraedy working at 1/2 the normal wage.

(you're one of thos liberal idiots who try to superimpose today's lefty, PC values onto those very different values of the past).
Unlike you and the usual suspects who relate Mr. Putin to Hitler and Stalin. Take a poll in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya today and see how beloved your motherland is due only to it's deeds in this last decade. Stupid and blindfold, you are very special indeed.

By your own member of the forces, wtf do you expect him to say. Get the same endorsement from Russia or (better yet) Israel then I might take you a bit more seriously. Until then your true colors are showing Blackheart. Is the flag below the first false flag the Brits pulled on their own countrymen? I'm thinking yes they were actually sleeping in the very same bed all the time.

 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+3
#12  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Bugger off with your historically inaccurate, politcally correct codswallop.

Britain has, for centuries (like England before her), been a force for good in this world.


All Britain has to do is nuke Russia, and then it'll be those Russkie planes looking for somewhere to land.

You might want to ask the opinion of the indigenous peoples in places where England invaded.
Also might want to read up on what happens when nukes start to fly around.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Those bloody Russians are pushing it. If they want war, they can have it. The British just love fighting a nice war.

Just as they always say... the British are always willing to fight to the last American.
 
MHz
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Just as they always say... the British are always willing to fight to the last American.

That's actually a pretty good reply.
 
MHz
#15
Did the Brits specify that the aircraft were not chased by the ships? Just saying..........

Russian planes and warship put UK on high alert - The Scotsman (external - login to view)
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#16
Meh... They're just playing. if they wanted Britain blitzed, it would be blitzed and you don't have a plane in your arsenal could do a damned thing. Remember the V2?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Those bloody Russians are pushing it. If they want war, they can have it. The British just love fighting a nice war.

We see it in your incessant trolling
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Just checking your sanity. Doctor, bring the jacket!

His sanity like Elvis is dead.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

You would wipe out 143 million people

Yeah, if needs be. Those filthy Russkies should stop chucking their planes over into our garden. They should get back to queuing for spuds.

Quote:

China, ... you and the West lose big time, never to rise again.

Other Western countries, like Canada and America, may lose if they were to take on China, but not the British. We've got the fighting spirit and never-say-die attitude that other peoples lack. Britain can beat ANYONE in a war.

Quote:

Being in the West I find that a better option that putting the world through another Britiania rules.

The world was a far better place under British rule than it is now. There are people in many places, particularly African countries like Zimbabwe that were much richer and prosperous under British rule than they are under tyrants like Mugabe, that are crying out for a return of the British.

Quote:

Really dividing India and Pakistan with a border that would cause eternal conflict is one of your nicer moves and it would give Attila the Hun a reason to do a face-palm.

As I've had to tell many people on here over the years: you really do need to read the history of the subject before spouting off about it.

Your ignorance on this subject shines through, yet you act all self-righteous and knowledgeable about it.

Do me a favour: go and read about the partition of India and then, when you've done that, come back here and make a grovelling apology to me.

Quote:

I didn't indicate they were the only ones that practiced that despicable act. Abolished it in favor of company town where the wages could only be spent at the 'Company Store' and it was always $5 less than a person needed to live in poverty until the next payday while the owners wre like hogs at a trough that was always full at the expense of the workers. Check with you local coal-miners and see if they would accept the condition the 'new and improved western controlled Govt in the Ukraine is imposing (trying to) on it's coal miners when they are alraedy working at 1/2 the normal wage.

Unlike other countries around the world, including those in the rest of Europe and in North America, slavery was illegal (and still is) in Britain since around the time of King John.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Just as they always say... the British are always willing to fight to the last American.


What, you mean like in the Falklands, where the Yanks did nothing apart from try and force the British to surrender and hand the islands to the Argies?

You mean like the Napoleonic Wars, where you decided to fight on the side of our enemy, France, and lost?

You mean like the War of 1812, where we beat you?

You mean like the whole of WWI (apart from a few months from the end of the conflict when we had to lend your poorly-trained troops kit and weapons and you caused Lloyd George surprise at just how few troops you'd sent to the conflict compared to the British?)

You mean like the first few years of WWII where, for a period, we fought Nazi Germany alone, before the Yanks came in with just one-tenth of the number of troops that the British had?

In fact, I struggle to find the last time the USA has fought a war ON ITS OWN and WON. The British did it in 1982. When did the Yanks last do it?

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Meh... They're just playing. if they wanted Britain blitzed, it would be blitzed and you don't have a plane in your arsenal could do a damned thing. Remember the V2?

There's no way Russian planes will bomb Britain. They'd be shot out of the sky by the RAF and RN before they had a chance.

We'd easily firebomb Russia, though, just as we did to Dresden in the good old days.

Quote:

You might want to ask the opinion of the indigenous peoples in places where England invaded.

Those opinions that the native peoples have of Britain's invasion of their lands matter as little to the British as it does to the Canadians.

Because if the Canadians did care about such matters then they'd give Canada back to the native peoples and return back to their ancestral homelands (mostly Britain). Yet they don't. They still colonise other people's lands.

The same also applies to your Yankee neighbours.

You should be grateful that Britain invaded the lands of other peoples, yet for some unfathomable reason you don't seem to be.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


What, you mean like in the Falklands, where the Yanks did nothing apart from try and force the British to surrender and hand the islands to the Argies?

We helped the Brits. Without the US you lose the Malvinas.

Quote:

You mean like the Napoleonic Wars, where you decided to fight on the side of our enemy, France, and lost?

Don't be stupid.

Besides it was the Prussians that defeated France.

Quote:

You mean like the War of 1812, where we beat you?

The Brits lost that war outright. And it makes me giddy to know that the beloved Brit General that burned Washington was pickled in rum with a bullet in his chest just days after.

Quote:

You mean like the whole of WWI (apart from a few months from the end of the conflict when we had to lend your poorly-trained troops kit and weapons and you caused Lloyd George surprise at just how few troops you'd sent to the conflict compared to the British?)

Another instance of the Yanks winning a war the Brits lost.

Quote:

You mean like the first few years of WWII where, for a period, we fought Nazi Germany alone, before the Yanks came in with just one-tenth of the number of troops that the British had?

Brit never fought on its on. Once again all of its Commonwealth nations and Americans had to come to its rescue when the Brits started a war they could not win on their own.

Quote:

In fact, I struggle to find the last time the USA has fought a war ON ITS OWN and WON. The British did it in 1982. When did the Yanks last do it?

War with Mexico, Civil War, Indian Wars, Banana Wars, War with Spain, Panama (much tougher than the Argies), Philippines, Cubans in Grenada.

You FAIL





.[/QUOTE]
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#20
I'm kinda curious how Blackie would expect to triumph in any conflict with Russia without having a navy?

Blockade the Island and in a month or so, they'll be eating weeds and Earth worms
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#21
Blackleaf and his glorification of war! Pffft!

The Crimean War - Episode 1 - YouTube

 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

We helped the Brits. Without the US you lose the Malvinas.

No, you didn't. We had Reagan calling on Britain to stop fighting Argentina and to let Argentina have the islands. Thatcher gave him a right good rollicking on the phone, leaving him a trembling wreck.


Quote:

Don't be stupid.

Just like the Napoleonic Wars, in which the US was on Napoleon's side..... and lost.

Quote:

Besides it was the Prussians that defeated France.

Where were the Prussians at Trafalgar?

Quote:

The Brits lost that war outright.

Only to someone taught history by American history teachers can say that America won the War of 1812.

However, anyone who studies the REAL War of 1812 rather than some romanticised American version of that war knows that not one American aim was met. The Americans never got any of the things they wanted. In fact, the Americans' aims weren't even discussed during the signing of the peace treaty.

Quote:

Another instance of the Yanks winning a war the Brits lost.

Britain won WWI.

America did nothing in that conflict, apart from joining a few weeks before it ended with badly-trained, badly-equipped troops who had to beg kit and weapons off the British and French.

I'm also certain, though, that most Yanks aren't taught this in schools.

Quote:

Brit never fought on its on. Once again all of its Commonwealth nations and Americans had to come to its rescue when the Brits started a war they could not win on their own.

Where were the Yanks and the Commonwealth nations during the Falklands?

Quote:

War with Mexico, Civil War, Indian Wars, Banana Wars, War with Spain, Panama (much tougher than the Argies), Philippines, Cubans in Grenada.

You FAIL

And how much fighting did the Yanks do in the Banana Wars?

It comes to something when you have to use the Banana Wars as an example of America winning a war it fought on its own.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

No, you didn't. We had Reagan calling on Britain to stop fighting Argentina and to let Argentina have the islands. Thatcher gave him a right good rollicking on the phone, leaving him a trembling wreck.

Reagan made it all possible. Without Reagan Thatcher was nothing. She loved Reagan.



Quote:

Just like the Napoleonic Wars, in which the US was on Napoleon's side..... and lost.

Where?


Quote:

Where were the Prussians at Trafalgar?

One sea battle. The Brit navy was made up of pressed sailors from the US. The US won at Trafalgar.



Quote:

Only to someone taught history by American history teachers can say that America won the War of 1812.

However, anyone who studies the REAL War of 1812 rather than some romanticised American version of that war knows that not one American aim was met. The Americans never got any of the things they wanted. In fact, the Americans' aims weren't even discussed during the signing of the peace treaty.

A thorough butt kicking was given to the brits at sea and on land.



Quote:

Britain won WWI.

America did nothing in that conflict, apart from joining a few weeks before it ended with badly-trained, badly-equipped troops who had to beg kit and weapons off the British and French.

I'm also certain, though, that most Yanks aren't taught this in schools.

Saved your butts. The brits and french were in retreat all over the western front. The US turned the tide.



Quote:

Where were the Yanks and the Commonwealth nations during the Falklands?

Supporting the brits so they wouldn't lose yet another war.



Quote:

And how much fighting did the Yanks do in the Banana Wars?

Lots

Quote:

It comes to something when you have to use the Banana Wars as an example of America winning a war it fought on its own.

Yes it does plus all the other examples.

And what does it come to you ponder? It comes to you being wrong again!

 
MHz
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

No, you didn't. We had Reagan calling on Britain to stop fighting Argentina and to let Argentina have the islands. Thatcher gave him a right good rollicking on the phone, leaving him a trembling wreck.

.

Not that often I ant to add a head to my trophy wall but you just made the list, wait you actually made the wall a desired item for the very first time. I do this not for myself but for dear departed Mom who was English/Irish and not afraid to speak her 'gentile mind' and, you sir' would have given her hours and hours of things to talk about. Your last post to me is such a piece that it required a reply that is novel in size rather than in thinking because that part was in reality since ants were sharing the same space and time.

BTW only the Mossad is allowed to be Canadian and from another country at the same time so the War of 1812 was fought by Canadians rather than it being a task demanded by the Queen. Ask any historian who won it and they will have to say it was the Canadian womens barmaid's (Assoc)that won it in the last winter as ........ well, why let you in on what is still a secret apparently.
Buckle up the ride is going to get some turbulence.
Last edited by MHz; Apr 25th, 2014 at 09:16 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Reagan made it all possible. Without Reagan Thatcher was nothing. She loved Reagan.




Quote:

Where?

So you are denying a historical fact?

I bet you wouldn't have denied America being on France's side in that conflict if America had actually been on the winning, rather than the losing, side.

We beat America in two wars fought at the same time - the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 - yet you deny America was on the losing side in both of them.

Bloody hilarious.

Quote:

One sea battle. The Brit navy was made up of pressed sailors from the US. The US won at Trafalgar.

Which American history teacher taught you that? They need to be shot, in my opinion.

Remember - America LOST the Napoleonic Wars.

Quote:

A thorough butt kicking was given to the brits at sea and on land.

If that's the case, why weren't you able to invade Canada and stop the British pressing deserted British sailors on Yank ships back into the Royal Navy (not American sailors as the Yanks falsely claim)?

Quote:

The US turned the tide.

With British kit and weapons.


Quote:

Supporting the brits so they wouldn't lose yet another war.


What battles did the Americans take part in in the Falklands?

And the British tend not to lose wars. We have one of the best war-fighting records in the world.

Quote:

Lots

According to Wikipedia:

The Banana Wars were a series of occupations, police actions, and interventions involving the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the Spanish–American War (189 and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy (1934).

It doesn't seem like it was a full-blown conflict to me. Nothing like the Falklands. And yet you use it as an example of a war America fought on its own and won.

Quote:

Yes it does plus all the other examples.

And what does it come to you ponder? It comes to you being wrong again!

Let's look at the other examples, shall we?

The American Civil War was a war America fought against itself. So you have proved that America can win a war against itself (and also lose against itself). Well done you.

The US invasion of Panama, the Spanish-American War, Grenada and the Phillippines involved American allies fighting alongside America. In the case of Grenada, America had the militaries of SIX Caribbean countries helping it. So why you are counting them as America fighting the enemy on its own is a mystery to me.

So it seems to me that the only time in the last 100 years America has fought a war against an enemy on its own and won was the Banana Wars, which seemed to have less fighting than the Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'm kinda curious how Blackie would expect to triumph in any conflict with Russia without having a navy?

Blockade the Island and in a month or so, they'll be eating weeds and Earth worms

The Royal Navy has almost 100 ships, a large chunck of them the most technologically advanced warships in the world, with more new ones on the way.

The Royal Canadian Navy has 15 warships.

So I don't know what you're banging on other navies for.

To say that the Russians - or ANYBODY - have the capabilities to "blockade the island" is laughable, especially a Russian navy which is suffering from lack of maintencance, serious underfunding, a lack of adequate training and a lack of timely replacement of equipment.

Remember, the Royal Navy is one of just TWO true Blue Water navies on the planet, and the Russian navy isn't the other.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

so the War of 1812 was fought by Canadians

Hmmmmm.....

The Regiments which decisively defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814 were:


21st Royal Scots Fusiliers (now 1 RHF)
44th East Essex (now 2 R Anglian)
85th Royal Bucks LI (now 2 LI)
York Militia (Canadian)
Royal Marines and RN.

Four of those five regiments don't sound very Canadian to me.

I also think it was the Lancashire Fusiliers - or their forerunners - who burnt down the White House.
 
MHz
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Reagan made it all possible. Without Reagan Thatcher was nothing. She loved Reagan.

What would Regan do in Nevada? Today he would keep the grazing rights and China would get their solar generating location and as part of the installation water and fencing could be done and then maintenance on ranching items would be maintained for free and the normal grazing fees still apply. Mineral rights for a rancher would include water so much of his improvements would include catching as much water as possible and in a cooling world desertification is going to be in the reverse and the Bundy place would get enough moisture that erosion would take place unless something with roots is put down. The Fed taking the land would free it up to be sold by the Fed as being their property that is free and clear of any other owners and the Bundy's would be left with homestead quarter sections of their choosing and the adjoining sections are up for bid. Not such a bad deal as to bid on the property you have to be standing on it and if you want to know how the farm auctions went the bigger locals stood beside the skinny banker and just asked if he wasn't bidding a bit high? The owner got that one back for free. Regan would have read some western scripts that follow that pattern because all western scripts follow the very same pattern. Time to move onto the next stage of sanity and export the text as material to be used in spotting mass conditioning for whatever reason.

For the math use the area as being as $$productive$$ as a wheat-field in the Prairies.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


So you are denying a historical fact?

I bet you wouldn't have denied America being on France's side in that conflict if America had actually been on the winning, rather than the losing, side.

What battles did US troops fight in on the European Continent? Were they at Waterloo when Blucher beat Napoleon?

FAIL

Quote:

We beat America in two wars fought at the same time - the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 - yet you deny America was on the losing side in both of them.

The Prussians beat France and we beat the Brits in 1812.



Quote:

Which American history teacher taught you that? They need to be shot, in my opinion.

Remember - America LOST the Napoleonic Wars.

The Prussians won the Napoleonic Wars and the US beat the Brits in the War of 1812.



Quote:

If that's the case, why weren't you able to invade Canada and stop the British pressing deserted British sailors on Yank ships back into the Royal Navy (not American sailors as the Yanks falsely claim)?

We did invade Canada.

The Brits stopped pressing sailors eventually.



Quote:

With British kit and weapons.

Such silliness. If anything we used the French machine gun.

Nevertheless... we won and saved the brits.


Quote:

What battles did the Americans take part in in the Falklands?

Our support with intelligence and sidewinders as well as logistical allowed the Brits to retake the Malvinas.

Quote:

And the British tend not to lose wars. We have one of the best war-fighting records in the world.

Sure... as long as they aren't fighting by themselves. lol

Quote:

According to Wikipedia:

The Banana Wars were a series of occupations, police actions, and interventions involving the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the Spanish–American War (189 and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy (1934).

It doesn't seem like it was a full-blown conflict to me. Nothing like the Falklands. And yet you use it as an example of a war America fought on its own and won.

Winning!



Quote:

Let's look at the other examples, shall we?

The American Civil War was a war America fought against itself. So you have proved that America can win a war against itself (and also lose against itself). Well done you.

The US invasion of Panama, the Spanish-American War, Grenada and the Phillippines involved American allies fighting alongside America. In the case of Grenada, America had the militaries of SIX Caribbean countries helping it. So why you are counting them as America fighting the enemy on its own is a mystery to me.

So it seems to me that the only time in the last 100 years America has fought a war against an enemy on its own and won was the Banana Wars, which seemed to have less fighting than the Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland.

Win Win Win!

Killing you isn't it!



Quote:

The Royal Navy has almost 100 ships, a large chunck of them the most technologically advanced warships in the world, with more new ones on the way.

It took how many days for the Brit navy to intercept a Russian Destroyer doing donuts off Scotland. LMAO!

What a pathetic navy.

And your imaginary navy! Oh scare us with your artist renditions!

Quote:

The Regiments which decisively defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814 were:


21st Royal Scots Fusiliers (now 1 RHF)
44th East Essex (now 2 R Anglian)
85th Royal Bucks LI (now 2 LI)
York Militia (Canadian)
Royal Marines and RN.

Four of those five regiments don't sound very Canadian to me.

The York Militia was not there.

And the brit troops that did burn Washington were soundly defeated at the Battle of Baltimore and sent running to their ships carrying their beloved Gen Ross in a pickle barrel.

Quote:

I also think it was the Lancashire Fusiliers - or their forerunners - who burnt down the White House.

Another unit of the defeated forces.

Lets not even start of the biggest azz kicking the Brits ever took... the Battle of New Orleans!

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


Hmmmmm.....

The Regiments which decisively defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814 were:


21st Royal Scots Fusiliers (now 1 RHF)
44th East Essex (now 2 R Anglian)
85th Royal Bucks LI (now 2 LI)
York Militia (Canadian)
Royal Marines and RN.

Four of those five regiments don't sound very Canadian to me.

I also think it was the Lancashire Fusiliers - or their forerunners - who burnt down the White House.

You need a history lesson again BL.

The defeated British Invasion force consisted of...

(Major General Robert Ross (external - login to view))
  • 1st (Light) Brigade (Colonel William Thornton (external - login to view)) (1100 men)
    • 85th Regiment of Foot (Bucks Volunteers)(Light Infantry) (external - login to view)
    • Light companies, 1/4th, 21st, 1/44th Foot
    • Company of Royal Marines, commanded by Lt Athelstan Stevens, detached from the Royal Marine battalion (external - login to view)
    • Rocket Detachment of 26 Royal Marine Artillery gunners, commanded by Lt John Lawrence, likewise detached from the Royal Marine battalion
    • Company of Colonial Marines (external - login to view) overseen by Captain Reed of the 2nd West India Regiment
  • 2nd Brigade (Colonel Arthur Brooke (external - login to view)) (1460 men)
    • 1st Battalion, 4th (King's Own) Regiment of Foot (external - login to view)
    • 1st Battalion, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot (external - login to view)
  • 3rd Brigade (Colonel Patterson) (ca. 1460 men)
    • 21st Regiment (Royal North British Fusiliers) (external - login to view)
    • 2nd Battalion, Royal Marines (external - login to view) (commanded by Major James Malcolm (external - login to view)) less one infantry company with the 1st Brigade, and the Rocket Detachment with the 1st Brigade.
  • composite battalion (formed from ship-based Marines) commanded by Captain John Robyns (external - login to view) and guarding the shoreline at Benedict
Note: there were a total of 1350 Marines[30] (external - login to view)
 
MHz
#28
Aren't 'we' chatty this morning?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


So you are denying a historical fact?
I bet you wouldn't have denied America being on France's side in that conflict if America had actually been on the winning, rather than the losing, side.
We beat America in two wars fought at the same time - the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 - yet you deny America was on the losing side in both of them.
Bloody hilarious.

Not all familiar with that aspect of the broader conflict of North America being carved up like a Christmas Turkey. The brutal wars were fought against a different people. The 'wars' you speak of is Europe battling with their their ****s being the sword. Wars about dividing the 'spoils of war'. How noble of you in that is the very same method used since before the Norsemen came calling one dark and stormy night, and the women cheered because they were the barmaids without any clients of something along that line.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;1906519
Which American history teacher taught you that? [B

They need to be shot, in my opinion.[/B]

Remember - America LOST the Napoleonic Wars.

What did the British stock market look like before Napoleon and after his demise? The Bank of England came under new ownership and the Royals were 'reduced' as being a 'depositor'.
That you have the same solution each and every time would be great if it worked even a small percent of the time. They say every great man will make a mistake in his life, however making many mistakes is not going to ensure you are an even greater man than that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;1906519
If that's the case, why weren't you able to invade Canada and stop the British pressing deserted British sailors on Yank ships back into the Royal Navy (not American sailors as the Yanks falsely claim)?
With [B

British kit and weapons[/B].

You should have stopped with the .303 from WWI

[QUOTE=Blackleaf;1906519
What battles did the Americans take part in in the Falklands?
And the British tend not to lose wars. We have one of the best war-fighting records in the world.[/QUOTE]
The one at the Island that was the staging area before


Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;1906519
According to Wikipedia:
[B

The Banana Wars were a series of occupations, police actions, and interventions involving the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the Spanish–American War (189 and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy (1934).[/B]
It doesn't seem like it was a full-blown conflict to me. Nothing like the Falklands. And yet you use it as an example of a war America fought on its own and won.

In England the appropriate example would be the businessmen owned the land and machines, steel and shipbuilding areas.

[QUOTE=Blackleaf;1906519
Let's look at the other examples, shall we?

The American Civil War was a war America fought against itself. So you have proved that America can win a war against itself (and also lose against itself). Well done you.

The US invasion of Panama, the Spanish-American War, Grenada and the Phillippines involved American allies fighting alongside America. In the case of Grenada, America had the militaries of SIX Caribbean countries helping it. So why you are counting them as America fighting the enemy on its own is a mystery to me.

So it seems to me that the only time in the last 100 years America has fought a war against an enemy on its own and won was the Banana Wars, which seemed to have less fighting than the Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland.[/QUOTE]
Yes, let's do that. Del Monte and Heinz jostling to keep prices (of stuff) getting higher and never lower.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;1906519
The Royal Navy has almost 100 ships, a large chunck of them the most technologically advanced warships in the world, with more new ones on the way.
The Royal Canadian Navy has 15 warships.
So I don't know what you're banging on other navies for.
To say that the Russians - or ANYBODY - have the capabilities to "blockade the island" is laughable, especially a Russian navy which is suffering from lack of maintencance, serious underfunding, a lack of adequate training and a lack of timely replacement of equipment.
[B

Remember, the Royal Navy is one of just TWO true Blue Water navies on the planet[/B], and the Russian navy isn't the other.

That was when the crowsnest of a ship was the highest 'land'. A sextant against a ballistic missile, that another tactic the Brits used time and time again.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;1906519
Hmmmmm.....

The Regiments which decisively defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814 were:


[B

21st Royal Scots Fusiliers (now 1 RHF)[/B]
44th East Essex (now 2 R Anglian)
85th Royal Bucks LI (now 2 LI)
York Militia (Canadian)
Royal Marines and RN.

Four of those five regiments don't sound very Canadian to me.

I also think it was the Lancashire Fusiliers - or their forerunners - who burnt down the White House.

The words 'Princess' and 'Edmonton' does not make then British soldiers. (although Harper would donate them to 'the cause'.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yeah, if needs be. Those filthy Russkies should stop chucking their planes over into our garden. They should get back to queuing for spuds.

International water and air space are not something you can change any time of the day of your choosing. If that 'illegal takeover' of the 'garden' area is justified in 'your world' yet Crimea is a totally different story? One blackeye doesn't mean you are more popular than the one with two of them.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Other Western countries, like Canada and America, may lose if they were to take on China, but not the British. We've got the fighting spirit and never-say-die attitude that other peoples lack. Britain can beat ANYONE in a war.

Name one other than the Falklands that you fought alone in.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The world was a far better place under British rule than it is now. There are people in many places, particularly African countries like Zimbabwe that were much richer and prosperous under British rule than they are under tyrants like Mugabe, that are crying out for a return of the British.

Should we use the history of South Africa as the British model of 'helping'? Mail to day is how helpful the French are in that general area, hard to say if that is a step up or a step down.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

As I've had to tell many people on here over the years: you really do need to read the history of the subject before spouting off about it.

Who gets to decide which reference book is used when a 'conflict' is encountered?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Your ignorance on this subject shines through, yet you act all self-righteous and knowledgeable about it.

Last time I checked, once the Queen gave independence to the Colonies called Provinces we 'forgot' to listen to anything they said aftr that in terms of joining together under one flag with the Queen still being the recognized Head of State even though she was under the control of the Crown from the City of London where the oath is to the BAR rather than to anything else.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Do me a favour: go and read about the partition of India and then, when you've done that, come back here and make a grovelling apology to me.

Radcliffe Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
(in part)Haste and indifference Had the Commission been more careful, gaffes in the division could have been avoided. For example, there were instances where the border was drawn leaving some parts of a village in India and some in Pakistan. Since he had just a month, Radcliffe saw little point in being careful to skirt villages. His border was drawn right through thickly populated areas instead of between them. There were even instances where the dividing line passed through a single house with some rooms in one country and others in the other.[citation needed (external - login to view)]
Radcliffe justified such casual division with the truism (external - login to view) that no matter what he did, people would suffer. The thinking behind this justification may never be known since Radcliffe "destroyed all his papers before he left India".[27] (external - login to view) He departed on Independence Day itself, before even the boundary awards were distributed. By his own admission, Radcliffe was heavily influenced by his lack of fitness for the Indian climate and his eagerness to depart India.[28] (external - login to view)
The implementation was no less hasty than the process of drawing the border. On 16 August 1947 at 5:00pm, the Indian and Pakistani representatives were given two hours to study copies, before the Radcliffe award was published on the 17th.[29] (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Unlike other countries around the world, including those in the rest of Europe and in North America, slavery was illegal (and still is) in Britain since around the time of King John.

Control of the majority by a minority has never gone out of style. The last change was the Magna Carta where the 'business owners' were given assurance the Royals would slaughter them only if there were no peasants left to suffer the insane wrath that Royals are subject to.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

What, you mean like in the Falklands, where the Yanks did nothing apart from try and force the British to surrender and hand the islands to the Argies?

No eyes in the sky sharing? I don't buy that, is the last port of call an American military installation or not?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You mean like the Napoleonic Wars, where you decided to fight on the side of our enemy, France, and lost?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You mean like the War of 1812, where we beat you?

I'm in Alberta and got here about 1950.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You mean like the whole of WWI (apart from a few months from the end of the conflict when we had to lend your poorly-trained troops kit and weapons and you caused Lloyd George surprise at just how few troops you'd sent to the conflict compared to the British?)


Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You mean like the first few years of WWII where, for a period, we fought Nazi Germany alone, before the Yanks came in with just one-tenth of the number of troops that the British had?

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

In fact, I struggle to find the last time the USA has fought a war ON ITS OWN and WON. The British did it in 1982. When did the Yanks last do it?

Civil War, quite some time ago, with the UK it was the IRA false-flag war in Ireland to justify the cameras in the City of London.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

There's no way Russian planes will bomb Britain. They'd be shot out of the sky by the RAF and RN before they had a chance.

If you think the V2 was quiet ........... This 'conquest' will be via the lack of sound coming from the British?American cash registers.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

We'd easily firebomb Russia, though, just as we did to Dresden in the good old days.

I shutter to think how many British war woodies exploded in the halls of power that fiery night.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Those opinions that the native peoples have of Britain's invasion of their lands matter as little to the British as it does to the Canadians.

The only difference is our leaders are forced to say Reservations are not racial or even segregation that surpasses that Gaza is experiencing just because it has been going on longer.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Because if the Canadians did care about such matters then they'd give Canada back to the native peoples and return back to their ancestral homelands (mostly Britain). Yet they don't. They still colonise other people's lands.

That would be the drunken Scot/Irish?English would it not? (1800 until today)

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The same also applies to your Yankee neighbours.

Suddenly they don't seem to smell as bad as they did a page or two ago, that is only because your stench is greater.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You should be grateful that Britain invaded the lands of other peoples, yet for some unfathomable reason you don't seem to be.

Make it something in the past and maybe I will. Once you allow Iceland to save you from yourselves then I will agree that your have the beast under control. Until then GTFU
 
coldstream
#29
It's an old Cold War ploy. Usually two Russian bombers will fly on a direct course towards a NATO country until they are intercepted by fighters.. and then they'll turn back before ever entering sovereign air space. They did it all the time against Canada over the North Pole (which both countries claim) up until the fall of Communism. Both sides did it to look for weak spots in defenses, and just thumb a nose at the other.

It seems Russia is just a little peeved about the bad press its getting about the Ukraine.. which they lay at doorstep of the U.S. and E.U. Don't worry no one is going to go to war over the Ukraine.. and especially not Global Thermonuclear War.
 
MHz
#30
I agree, no actual war but that doesn't mean there won't be a crash of the USD that sends North America into an extreme change in government that can either go like Crimea where we generate our own bustling community or we go into savage mentality and start looking like the eastern Ukraine/ Syria/Etc. The question will be about is it a mad rush where everybody chips in of the equipment means lots of people get to relax at home with no drop in their standard of living. 3% supplying the needs of the other 97% that puts everybody on the same income level. It's called maxing out the card before canceling it.
 
no new posts