RAF Jet Chases Russian Planes Away From UK
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
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.
Just like the Napoleonic Wars, in which the US was on Napoleon's side..... and lost.
Where were the Prussians at Trafalgar?
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.
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.
Where were the Yanks and the Commonwealth nations during the Falklands?
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.
Reagan made it all possible. Without Reagan Thatcher was nothing. She loved Reagan.
Where?
One sea battle. The Brit navy was made up of pressed sailors from the US. The US won at Trafalgar.
A thorough butt kicking was given to the brits at sea and on land.
Saved your butts. The brits and french were in retreat all over the western front. The US turned the tide.
Supporting the brits so they wouldn't lose yet another war.
Lots
Yes it does plus all the other examples.
And what does it come to you ponder? It comes to you being wrong again!
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:
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.
Which American history teacher taught you that? They need to be shot, in my opinion.
Remember - America LOST the Napoleonic Wars.
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 British kit and weapons.
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.
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 (1898) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What battles did US troops fight in on the European Continent? Were they at Waterloo when Blucher beat Napoleon?
FAIL
The Prussians beat France and we beat the Brits in 1812.
The Prussians won the Napoleonic Wars and the US beat the Brits in the War of 1812.
We did invade Canada.
The Brits stopped pressing sailors eventually.
Such silliness. If anything we used the French machine gun.
Nevertheless... we won and saved the brits.
Our support with intelligence and sidewinders as well as logistical allowed the Brits to retake the Malvinas.
Sure... as long as they aren't fighting by themselves. lol
Winning!
Win Win Win!
Killing you isn't it!
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!
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.
Another unit of the defeated forces.
Lets not even start of the biggest azz kicking the Brits ever took... the Battle of New Orleans!
You need a history lesson again BL.
The defeated British Invasion force consisted of...
(Major General Robert Ross)
- 1st (Light) Brigade (Colonel William Thornton) (1100 men)
- 85th Regiment of Foot (Bucks Volunteers)(Light Infantry)
- Light companies, 1/4th, 21st, 1/44th Foot
- Company of Royal Marines, commanded by Lt Athelstan Stevens, detached from the Royal Marine battalion
- Rocket Detachment of 26 Royal Marine Artillery gunners, commanded by Lt John Lawrence, likewise detached from the Royal Marine battalion
- Company of Colonial Marines overseen by Captain Reed of the 2nd West India Regiment
- 2nd Brigade (Colonel Arthur Brooke) (1460 men)
- 1st Battalion, 4th (King's Own) Regiment of Foot
- 1st Battalion, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot
- 3rd Brigade (Colonel Patterson) (ca. 1460 men)
- 21st Regiment (Royal North British Fusiliers)
- 2nd Battalion, Royal Marines (commanded by Major James Malcolm) 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 and guarding the shoreline at Benedict
Aren't 'we' chatty this morning?
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.
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.
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.
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'.Blackleaf;1906519 Which American history teacher taught you that? [B said:
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.
You should have stopped with the .303 from WWIBlackleaf;1906519 If that's the case said:
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 said:
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. :roll:
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. :roll:
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.
Yep. Russia is kinda like that little attention-starved brat North Korea except not. And, except they have more nukes than anyone, well-rounded standing army, lottsa muscle and influence.
... you forgot that they are acting within international law, not that is a big issue with the West.
Grenada... another nation that won its independence from the Brits.
Six Caribbean countries that came in after as peace keepers.
The Malvina's War was a cake walk due to US support.
A war that the Brits were VERY wise to stay out of as they knew they could not afford a third lost war at the hands of the US.
You still need to do some research.
Silly Blackleaf.... Missiles are for Brits. You DO know what the V2 was, don't you?
The rest of it makes you sound like a war-crazed Legion reject
You can deny all you like that America was an ally of France in the Napoleonic Wars and so was on the losing side, but it will NOT change history. You cannot change it by denying it. No amount of denying it will change that historical fact, so it doesn't bother me how much you deny it.
The Prussians were not even in the conflict from the start. The conflict started in 1803 and they didn't even enter it until 1806. In the anti-French coalition, led by Britain, Britain was virtually alone in remaining at war with France throughout the whole of the conflict (sounds just like WWII, but against Germany).
When the Prussians did enter the conflict the ill-equipped Prussian Army, which was small at just 42,000 men in strength and retained the same training, tactics and weaponry used by Frederick the Great some forty years earlier, was decisively defeated in the battles of Saalfeld, Jena and Auerstedt.
To say that the Prussians won the Napoleonic Wars shows just how bad history education is in North American schools.
Where's the evidence of this? Not one American aim of the conflict was even met. The Americans failed to achieve even one thing they set out to achieve. None of their aims were even discussed at the signing of the peace treaty. America lost the War of 1812.
The British victory also saw 3,000 American slaves flee to Britain, where slavery had been illegal since medieval times, and so get the freedom which they would have been denied in America, where slavery wasn't abolished until the 1860s.
Did you annex those British territories like you set out to do? No, you didn't, because we drove you out.
Saying that America won the War of 1812 because it invaded Canada is like saying Germany won WWII because it invaded France.
Those pressing of sailors into the Royal Navy - which were BRITISH sailors which had deserted and joined American ships which the British were recapturing, NOT American sailors as the Yanks still claim today - ended only after Britain had defeated your ally France in the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. It was not the Americans and the War of 1812 which caused the impressments to end. It was Britain's victory in the Napoleonic Wars against your nefarious ally. Britain refused throughout the War of 1812 and after it to stop those impressments and the Yanks failed to stop them.
When the Yanks joined the war as late as 1917 the Allies were not that impressed with them. They were poorly equipped and had to borrow kit and weapons from the British and French - even tanks.
In fact, the British were so distrusting of the American Army which, unlike the British Army, was severely lacking in large-scale warfare, that they even tried to force the US to put its soldiers into British ranks.
In the end, the four battle-ready American divisions were deployed with French and British units to gain combat experience by defending relatively quiet sectors of their lines.
So rather than these tough, all-American heroes sent to Europe to win a war the inept British and French couldn't win, WWI was nothing more than a training expertise for the inexperienced, badly-equipped Americans under British and French leadership using British and French equipment given relatively safe sectors to fight.
How the U.S. Almost Betrayed Britain in the Falklands War - WSJ.com
What about the Falklands?
And you needed allies fighting alongside yout o win.
We've established that the only war in which America has fought an enemy on its own and won in the last 100 years was the Bananas War. And that's probably the ONLY war in its history that it has won on its own.
General Galtieri said that in 1982.
Yes, they were.
Doesn't matter. The US lost the war.
And that defeat took only place AFTER the British had won the war.
The Battle of New Orleans took place on 8th January 1815. The Treaty of Ghent was signed -with not one American aim having even been discussed - on 24th December 1814.
New Orleans was too little, too late for the Yanks.
The British invaded America because America was trying to invade and annex British territories to the north. So you can hardly point the finger at the British for invading. You should look at your own country first. The British were merely defending their territories against an aggressor.
And I'll say again - the US lost the War of 1812. You failed to stop the British recapturing desterted British sailors and the Britihs kicked you out of Canada.
Was it a Mancunian punk rock band formed in 1977?
Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801)
Dummer's War vs France - 1721-1725
Anglo-Cherokee War - 1758-1761
Pontiac's Rebellion - 1763-1766
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922)
The British invasions of the Río de la Plata (modern Argentina) - 1806-1807
Anglo-Turkish War vs Ottoman Empire - 1807-1809
The Gunboat War vs the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway - 1807-1814
Anglo-Russia War - 1807-1812
4th Xhosa War vs the Xhosa - 1811-1812
Kandyan War vs Kingdom of Kandy - 1796-1818
First Ashanti War vs Ashanti Empire - 1823-1831
First Opium War vs China - 1839-1842
The War of the Axe vs Xhosa - 1847
Mlanjeni's War vs Xhosa - 1851-1853
Second Anglo-Burmese War vs Burma - 1852-1853
First Taranaki War vs Maori - 1860-1861
Second Ashanti War vs Ashanti Empire - 1863-1864
Third Ashanti War vs Ashanti Empire - 1873-1874
First Boer War vs South African Republic - 1880-1881
Third Anglo-Burmese War vs Burma - 1885
Anglo-Zanzibar War - 1896
Second Boer War vs Orange Free State and South African Republic - 1899-1902
Anglo-Aro War vs Aro Confederacy - 1901-1902
Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920 vs Iraqi rebels - 1920
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922 to present)
British-Zionist conflict vs Haganah, Palmach, Irgun, Lehi - 1938-1948
Cyprus Emergency - 1955-1960
Border Campaign vs IRA - 1956-1962
The Troubles vs republican and unionist paramilitaries - 1968-1998
Falklands War vs Argentina - 1982
And that's not including all the wars the Kingdom of England (modern England and Wales) fought alone before she unified with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707.
Last edited:
Busy little critters aren't you. Should British Petroleum VS Gulf of Mexico be included? (or excluded because American Companies were sub-contractors) If you ever want to see the strength of red hot steel watch the vid of the burn-down and the unloading crane after being in the flames for about 24 hours then apply that to the core of the towers and the fuel requirement doesn't come close to being enough. If the truth alludes you then the deception doesn't have to be improved or mistakes fixed so a bigger percent buys the story. Nobody likes a bad lie, a good lie never gets complained about until it is viewed in hindsight. Getting the 'marks' money is the 'prize', the prize will get away if the liar insists that said mark also provide all the funding that ends in him being 'tricked' out of his money.
Did you even notice the part where I said 'one example' because you failed the task. (that can also mean you do that in a lot of other parts of your day and that could be dangerous and stupid at the same time, never a good combination. The reason for just one is the next question would be about some input from the locals as to how that meeting went and how grateful they feel that the Brits came calling at all. As there has been no great upheaval (like Russia has experienced) the methods used in any current military adventure, except in the Ukraine you are already using only methods that are used when you are the weaker one in a war. In the early parts of WWII your method of war was 'sabotage behind enemy lines', terrorism by another name. The methods the French use in Syria and Mali are not any different from what the Brits would do in any adventure they did. (getting caught more than the Brits is admitted) Freedom from their grasp should also take the same pattern, Haiti got the bank (of France) paid back 250 years after they gained (physical) freedom from France, price of breaking free would make anybody a bit leery of joining in the first place. Now that the world has electricity communication should also be available to the elite and the Igloo bound at the very same time. Ottawa would have to accept his 'vote' if he has a valid SIN card. Martial Law governed by referendum votes by people that file their own paperwork would be something Britain should experience before she ends up being the same as the colonies she has created in her past.
The Monarchy was reluctant to give the businessmen any rights or protections that equaled what the Monarchy had in itself as far as being slaughtered goes. The Magna Carta was that 'flag' and today it is the 'consumers' that want that same level of protection and that would be getting products that were made better and better each generation. Just like the quality of the 'stuff' that business now supplies to the Monarchy. (of the world) it gets better each generation.
Give me your short version of how that document came into being after the concept was 'put on the table'.
Independence, my ****. Like Canada, another British colony, Grenada still has the British Head of State reigning over it.
Why is it I'm so much better at facts than you are?
The US invasion of Grenada was aided by neighbouring Caribbean nations:
On October 25, 1983, combined forces from the United States and from the Regional Security System (RSS) based in Barbados invaded Grenada in an operation codenamed Operation Urgent Fury. The U.S. stated this was done at the behest of Prime Minister Eugenia Charles of Dominica. While the Governor-General of Grenada, Sir Paul Scoon, later stated that he had also requested the invasion, it was highly criticised by the governments of Britain, Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada. The United Nations General Assembly condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law" by a vote of 108 in favor to 9, with 27 abstentions. The United Nations Security Council considered a similar resolution, which failed to pass when vetoed by the United States.
Grenada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The people of Britain were staggered when America refused to help in the Falklands. Even more so because the Americans were seen to be siding with the pretty sordid dictatorship of General Galtieri. America sent the message loud and clear - stuff you Britain, we prefer the dictators on our doorstep.
Britain went to the Falklands not just to defend its territory, but to defend its citizens there, who were now the prisoners of the Argentine forces. This was an honourable cause.
Britain proved herself still capable of amazing military logistics in delivering her forces so fast and so massively into the South Atlantic, a long way away.
The fact that she did this without the help of her fairweather 'friend', America, made the feat still more extraordinary. The British even turned the ocean liners Canberra and QE2 into fighting ships in a matter of days!
They got short range Vulcan bombers (veterans of the 1950s), which were capable of carrying nuclear bombs, out of mothballs, patched them up and somehow got them in the air all the way down to the Falklands to accurately obliterate the runway in Port Stanley, denying the Argentine Air Force a landing strip and seriously compromising its capability - vital because the AAF was the only really effective element of the Argentine Armed Forces. In fact, it was the longest-range bombing mission in history.
All this was done while the Americans sidled up to the despotic General and the French (I wouldn't put anything past them) sold the Argentines the Exocet missiles that did such deadly damage to the Royal Navy.
This war is remembered with pride in the UK. The British Armed Forces proved once again they're the best. They proved it in the fighting and they proved it in the way they overcame the sheer enormity of the task of delivering a huge military force across the largest expanse of open sea without any friendly harbour or airport along the way - thanks to the Yanks.
The Americans abandoned their greatest ally at a time when Britain truly needed them. Worse, they abandoned the Brits in favour of a pretty gruesome dictatorship .... and the British people, who are strong on loyalty and friendship, have harbourred the grievance ever since. America should bear that in mind.
Britain would have kicked America's **** had she entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy.
Last edited:
Well I hate to say it but America DID lose the war of 1812.
They DID enter WWII late in the game as they, initially, seemed to sympathize with the Nazies until they started taking over countries that they had agreed not to invade. Mind you, they were kinda tied up with the Japanese so maybe that was their excuse.
I'm not really sure about WWI so I'm not comfortable commenting on it.
Recent losses include Iraq (look what's happening now) and, likely in the future Afghanistan. Poor judgement by Obama, wanted to "nice up" to tyrants and despots. Not that he's the only President to do so. But the Americans don't necessarily have a good history insofar as war is concerned either, so I'd be careful about condemning Britain or any other country really.....
JMHO
The Americans abandoned their greatest ally at a time when Britain truly needed them. Worse, they abandoned the Brits in favour of a pretty gruesome dictatorship .... and the British people, who are strong on loyalty and friendship, have harbourred the grievance ever since. America should bear that in mind.
They still are!!
They DID enter WWII late in the game as they, initially, seemed to sympathize with the Nazies until they started taking over countries that they had agreed not to invade. Mind you, they were kinda tied up with the Japanese so maybe that was their excuse.
I'm not really sure about WWI so I'm not comfortable commenting on it.
Recent losses include Iraq (look what's happening now) and, likely in the future Afghanistan. Poor judgement by Obama, wanted to "nice up" to tyrants and despots. Not that he's the only President to do so. But the Americans don't necessarily have a good history insofar as war is concerned either, so I'd be careful about condemning Britain or any other country really.....
JMHO
The Americans abandoned their greatest ally at a time when Britain truly needed them. Worse, they abandoned the Brits in favour of a pretty gruesome dictatorship .... and the British people, who are strong on loyalty and friendship, have harbourred the grievance ever since. America should bear that in mind.
They still are!!
