Star-spangled banner - an English view

[Daz_Hockey]

Fraud lol yeah right...ok sure.

Your not from the UK, you know nothing about the UK and to be honest your short memory makes me laugh. "not from the uk" indeed, because I have no idea where your piss-ant little town is lol.

First you speak such BS about the BEF, then you clim I'm not English. haha, I've very English.

 

[MattUK]

Getting a bit boring now guys.

Have a game of chess or something, UK v America, whoever wins takes all.

 

[I think not]

I was not talking about money. Money has nothing to do with it. Yes, America could jusk Nuke China, but Bush is not that stupid. It would cause a world war. Before America knew what the result of their nuke was, various countries would be sending nukes back to the US.

Also, 130 Nuke warheads is enough to cause the US serious damage.

But you see, this is my point. America would never attack China with anything less than long range missiles. If they were to try to do in China what they did in Afghanistan or Iraq, they would fail miserably. Its "people power", at the last count, China actually had 1,306,313,812 people, America, Canada and the UK put together only have 388,980,632, you are talking nealy a billion more people in China. Who can be called upon to fight.

If you think thats something the Americans take on with their 'pathetic'** 295,735,134 people, I will have fun watching.

** I use the word pathetic in numerical terms, not to mean that the US is pathetic.

Actually I personally believe it would turn out to be a naval war, if anything.

 

[MattUK]

Its a good point.

No country is stupid enough to attack China on their own land. Its just suicide.

The power China has is very different to any other sort of power. Which I suppose is why some people find it hard to grasp. 1.3 billion people is an uncomprehendable amount to me. On a battle field, I dont see how less than 300 million could beat them.

 

[I think not]

Well I'm no military expert, but sheer numbers don't really mean anything. Take under consideration your own past. The British Empire hardly had millions of troops in those days. You ruled the seas and deployed very few troops to fight. An example would be this War of 1812. The US at the time had over 7 million people. The British Empire fought the entire war with less than 50,000 troops. Just an example.

 

[Curiosity]

Anyone got time for a question?

Is the purpose of having nuclear power is it serves as a threat of use - not use itself?

It would seem to me having a missile, warhead or however they are actually deployed is rather a limp dick argument. "Flashing sabres in the wind" (to mess up allegorical stuff).

If one were to use nuclear power against another nation, they would signing their own death warrant right?

Ergo: what the heck is nuclear power for? Threat only? An indication of military strength? Wag the dog?

Even the first nation to deploy the earliest atomic bombs has been reviled for so doing by historical analysis, and that same nation has never sought to utilize the even more powerful weaponry against
another nation since.....

I am curious because I do not process thought as men - especially military men do - but would like to understand why we continue to acquire these deadly forms of "defense" or "offense" or ????

 

[MattUK]

Yes, pereperation comes into it. There are a number of factors that means that smaller numbers can beat larger numbers. Did the 50,000 UK troops encounter a million Americans at a time with similar equipment? Or were they fighting more battles but much smaller battles agains men that did not have the same military equipment? In 1812, the communication and the ability to move people quicky to defend was not there - it is now.

But, people in the far east tend to be more 'fanatical', (and I use that word extremly lightly and only because I cant think of a better word). You only have to look at how Chinese, Japanese, Malay, Korean etc fighters have fought in the past to know that they will fight to their death. The have a different mindset to us - thats what I mean by fanatical.

I dont think that we will ever know though, as I dont think the US will ever try to attack China. So its a bit of a pointless conversation!!

But economically now, I think that they are considered a super-power. I am sure I saw a mention of that on TV the other day.

The have done various things - launced a man into orbit with Chinese built technology etc. They plan to go to the moon - will they beat the Americans this time? They are a power not to be underestimated in any capacity.

I also didn't like the stat that China have 130 warheads, who says they are not hiding another 3000 of them?

 

[I think not]

Curio

When the US dropped the bombs on Japan so many years ago, it opened up pandoras box. I'm not going to comment whether or not we should of dropped it, leave it up to history, not revisionist history, those who view it with a contemporary eye that have a political axe to grind. You have to know much about the Pacific Theater during WWII to comment.

To answer your direct question, the intent is to use them, in my opinion. Had Saddam used any type of chemical weapons during the Iraq war, I guarantee you, the US would have used nukes. In war you use everything at your disposal to minimize your casualties and mximize casualties on the other side. That's how wars are won.

The only solution would be to get rid of all nuclear weapons, but that's not gonna happen. I listen to many claiming the US should make the first move and get rid of its nukes, I agree with this, so long as the same people can guarantee non-transparent states won't develop nuclear weapons, and I don't think anyone can guarantee that.

 

[MattUK]

Anyone got time for a question?

Is the purpose of having nuclear power is it serves as a threat of use - not use itself?

It would seem to me having a missile, warhead or however they are actually deployed is rather a limp dick argument. "Flashing sabres in the wind" (to mess up allegorical stuff).

If one were to use nuclear power against another nation, they would signing their own death warrant right?

Ergo: what the heck is nuclear power for? Threat only? An indication of military strength? Wag the dog?

Even the first nation to deploy the earliest atomic bombs has been reviled for so doing by historical analysis, and that same nation has never sought to utilize the even more powerful weaponry against
another nation since.....

I am curious because I do not process thought as men - especially military men do - but would like to understand why we continue to acquire these deadly forms of "defense" or "offense" or ????

Governments that have them are not usually a problem, they are a deterrant. Its when terrorists get them we have to worry, there are reports that the Jap terrorist organisation has them;

"In the late 1980's, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo began a project to built weapons of mass destruction. Aum Shinrikyo gained notoriety in 1995 when it released extravagant quantities of the nerve gas sarin into the Tokyo subway system, killing twelve people. A search of their records revealed that Aum Shinrikyo had purchased land in the vast Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia -- which had a uranium deposit. Aum Shinrikyo hired Russian nuclear scientists in 1990, and they duplicated the Parsons gun-bomb from raw uranium in the Australian outback At 11:03 PM on May 28, 1993, they successfully tested their gun-bomb, completely unnoticed by anyone!!! Seismograph needles all over the Pacific region noted the very large-scale disturbance near a place called Banjawarn Station, and some prospectors later reported seeing a flash in the sky, but the explosion had no obvious explanation, so it was filed away as an unexplained curiosity."

If thats true, then we have to worry. Bin Laden has the billions of dollars to aquire this sort of stuff.

 

[I think not]

MattUK

I agree we can't compare a war fought over 200 years ago with today. Technology alone has made leaps and bounds, and do so everyday. Technology and money makes superpowers. An example would be the British Empire, how did it lose control of the seas? Simple, the wooden ships (and the UK had thousands of them) became outdated with ironclads and didn't have the resources to catch up.

I disagree with you on the US and China, I think war is inevitable. China will one day attack Taiwan, and the US will get in the middle of it. It'll be a naval war that hopefully doesn't go nuke. On the other end, as China becomes more amd more open, I believe it will fracture into smaller states, as it has done so many times in its past. That will, literally decrease any China threat. Remember it's not only the US that is nervous about China, the Japanese are ****ting bricks, they have China and North Korea to worry about. They aren't liked very much ever since Tojo sent his army of butchers and slaughtered millions of people.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Completly agree ITN, although, you are right, and that was the only point I was making about the soldiers of the British Empire, whoever they were. Now CDNBear seems to have the impression I'm not English at all, but some phoney north American kid on a wind up!!!.

That I certainly am not. I have visited the quasi-Nelson's column next to Niagara fall's for General Brock and quietly chuckled after the crowd's response to the guide stating "America has it's own hero's, we dont even have that, they were all foreign and British"!!.

My point was exactly that of my American fellow tourists..."come on guy's, they fought for the British Empire, and if that doesn't make them British, I don't know what does!!!"....Brock was from St. Peter Port in Guernsey (which I have visited), and yet he still fought for the British Empire.

One could argue that he was in fact a Channel islander or Norman and NOT British at all, but that would be symantics, which seem to be what CDNBear likes to argue with me.

And I am from England actually, a little place called Shirley, on the outskirts of Southampton (know the place?) near Totton and virtually looking out the solent from the docks.

 

[I think not]

Completly agree ITN, although, you are right, and that was the only point I was making about the soldiers of the British Empire, whoever they were.

When Emperor Xerxes of the Persian Empire decided to invade the city state of Athens he conscripted troops from all corners of his empire. Herodotos claims he assembled an army of two million. I assure you they all fought as subjects of the Persian Empire. And in that war, we are talking about nations, where peoples origins were lost in time. It is foolish to claim "Canadians" even existed during the War of 1812. Upper and Lower Canada existed for sure, but they were all British Subjects, and we all know where they came from. As Americans were British Subjects prior to 1781 (yeah you can call them traitors from a Brit point of view). That's my short take on it anyway.

 

[CDNBear]

First it was "They were NOT Irish" then it became "Well if they were Irish that means they ARE British"

Then there is this one,,,to quote you

"ohhhh I can trace my family back to some made up English village" moron. Now it's,,,"because I have no idea where your piss-ant little town is lol."

And you wonder why I think you are a fraud?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

First it was "They were NOT Irish" then it became "Well if they were Irish that means they ARE British"

Then there is this one,,,to quote you

"ohhhh I can trace my family back to some made up English village" moron. Now it's,,,"because I have no idea where your piss-ant little town is lol."

And you wonder why I think you are a fraud?

just follow this link and you will have the answer you are looking for.

http://www.coraltree.co.uk/mainpage...&376=F95D926A186986619828D89DDFCE83D2F0D78757

by the way, Southampton is in England.

 

[CDNBear]

I have as yet, had no luck in finding the information to settle the Nationallity of the individuals responsible for torching the White House, so I will conceed, that I may be wrong, but still stand by my original statement, and all subsiquent statements. It was unanomous though. We all agreed over our weekend of chest thumping and avid discussion, that it was Irish conscripts that led the charge. Oddly enough, the two gentleman from 8 Wing that came by, whos parents are landed immigrants to Canada, from Ireland, seemed most anoyed at being called "British".

Irish are not "British", they are Irish under the occupation of Britian. If they were "British" they would not be called Irish. If a regiment of Indian (as in East Indies), were used to quell anything for the "British" rulers of their Nation, the mere fact that they are "British" subjects, fighting under the command of "British" officers, does not make them "British", it makes them "British" subjects. Anyone, who argues that fact is indeed using Imperialist thinking.

In the case of the Irish, the only ones that we could possibly see not take offence to being called "British", were the Protestants. Who are seen by other Irish peoples as sell outs or colaborators.

 

[CDNBear]

just follow this link and you will have the answer you are looking for.

http://www.coraltree.co.uk/mainpage...&376=F95D926A186986619828D89DDFCE83D2F0D78757

by the way, Southampton is in England.

OMG, I stand corrected.

My most humblest appologies.

You are not a fraud, you are just....forget it.

So which was it again, "they were NOT Irish", or "well if they were that means they are British" or "that town is made up" or 'i never heard of your piss-ant lil town"?

You change sides quicker then a liberal politician.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

You might want to point out to them the case of one Martin O'Neil then.

I have this arguement with my suposedly non-exsistant northern Irish future sister-in-law. Martin O'Neil is a former northern Irish defender, who played for his country for many years, and with a name like O'Neil, there is little of English to him.

BUT, he also has an MBE (Member of the British Empire), which in my opinion, must suggest he has taken on board and embrassed himself as "British". My brother's fiancee completly disagree's with this and insists he is indeed Irish and NOT British.

It is a point of view of course, I actually had a storming row in a New York hostel of all places with 2 rather burley Irish gentlemen (who strangly were big fans of cricket) about irish independence, suggesting Britian was hit "in the crotch" when it was down by the irish was non-too-popular.

Of course, there are MANY, MANY who would suggest they were NOT british, certainly those who switched their lights on to guide the luftwaffe to English towns would agree with you. But again, a lot of them probably DIDN'T think of themselves as British, but they fought for the British empire, their country was occupied by them, and in general, when your country is seen (at that time anyway) as prt of Britain, and you fight FOR Britain, surely there is no more example you can have of them being British?.

Irish people today will always vhermently disagree when you suggest they are British, because now they are not, but once they were, just like once the Scotti tribe in Scotland was Irish, but call a Scot Irish and see what you get.

 

[CDNBear]

but call a Scot Irish and see what you get.

Not even on a bet.

Yes I agree, it is a matter of symantics, but not to those that fought, or those that choose to use history as a rally cry.

But what of my question, and I'm being sincere, no more vulgar salvo's, just a simple discussion(OK), by your way of thought, would you consider East Indians in the service(forced service) of Her/His Majesty, to be British?

We already know what they would say. But I'm curious as to your point of view.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Ah, East India, it's been a good 7 months since I was there.

I travelled from Goa to Bombay (Mumbai) via the indian Railway and ended (after a day and a half) at Victoria Terminal (or VT to the locals). I visited the "Gateway to India", built in the '20's to commemorate King George visiting as the Emporer of India. I also visited Ghandi's abode.

Ghandi would probably be your best example. He certainly considered himself "British" for most of his life. He even fought for the British in the Boer war (all be it as an stretcher bearer). His mother sent him off to Britain to be educated as a "British scholar", but he was to stay away from those 3 evils "Women, Alcohol and beef".

Until the 20's, most Indian's considered themselves as "British", after the treatment and gradual awareness stirred in India during the period between WW1 and WW2 (much like Ireland), they saw they could break away and at that point ceased to be British.

I think the two cases are very similar actually, good point.

 

[I think not]

CDNBEar

One quick question, because I am trying to follow your line of thought. During the War of 1812, were the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada British or "Canadians" under British rule, in your opinion. (I'll remind you I always take exception to the Native Peoples.)