America please F***k off

[The Colonel]

And by the way people - if you like I can prove my identity easily.

There are two members here who know me in person, so go feck yourself RebMUM!

[Cambridge]

Cambridge,

Correct in essence, but the bi-planes concerned were Fairey Swordfish:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

Mosquitoes were not navy biplanes, but were fast air force monoplane combat aircraft:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Rebman, you are correct. The aircraft involved in the sinking of the Bismarck were Swordfish and not Mosquitoes. Brain cramp. I just crossed the names in my mind as I was drafting my post.

[The Colonel]

Cambridge,

Correct in essence, but the bi-planes concerned were Fairey Swordfish:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

Mosquitoes were not navy biplanes, but were fast air force monoplane combat aircraft:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Rebman, you are correct. The aircraft involved in the sinking of the Bismarck were Swordfish and not Mosquitoes. Brain cramp. I just crossed the names in my mind as I was drafting my post.

That doesn't alter the fact he's a troll.

[Cambridge]

To me, neither of you are trolls. I'm impressed with Rebman’s grasp of wwII history—he caught my error didn’t he?

[The Colonel]

To me, neither of you are trolls. I'm impressed with Rebman’s grasp of wwII history—he caught my error didn’t he?

Had I saw your post first I would have corrected you.

He is a troll, since every single one of his posts (apart from about 5) troll me and attack me around the board.

Even myron isn't as bad as THAT.

[dudeski]

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

Hmmmm, this is a fascinating suggestion.

Do I misread this? Or do you mean this the way it sounds?

[Rebman]

Had I saw your post first I would have corrected you.

And who would have corrected your errors?

He is a troll, since every single one of his posts (apart from about 5) troll me and attack me around the board.

“Around the board” is something of an exaggeration (your post rate is over 20 per day, mine is less than 1 per day). I corrected your assertions on a defence related thread, and you attacked me (calling me “a silly little man” and “Mr. Idiot”), when I was clearly in the right. I have a lifetime of experience in defence matters, so I know inaccuracies when I see them, and you have posted countless inaccuracies, which is not what one would expect from a retired Lieutenant Colonel.

The only other topic on which I have exposed your lies and libel was in the “Still in Nappies” thread, after you INVITED members to check your posting record. As Cambridge is a lawyer, perhaps you would care to ask him to check the legal validity of your allegations against a member and a guest in that thread.

The only other threads where I have responded to your posts have been ones in which I hadn’t even posted, yet you attacked me by claiming that I am someone who I am not, and using insulting language. Then when I reply to your insults you claim that I am stalking you.

You now appear to have lied yet again, as you claim to have blocked my posts, yet you quoted my post replying to Cambridge.

Even myron isn't as bad as THAT.

Myron’s area of professional specialism is in law, not defence (particularly military aviation) as mine is.

[The Colonel]

Yet another troll post directly aimed at me for the purposes of attack.

That is ALL he does here.

[myron myron]

I am a bit confused as to Cambridge's position on the question whether the U.S. saved the UK in World War II.

At first, Cambridge not only agreed with me that the United States saved the UK in World War II, but he elaborated with additional factual averments:

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

But then Cambridge agreed with the Colonel's following comment that directly contradicts my position with which Cambridge not only agreed but also elaborated on (as quoted above):

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

I agree. Whatever beef you may have with myron, I am not him. Are we straight?

Perhaps Cambridge would be so kind as to clarify this irreconcilable contradiction in his posts by answering the question with a simple "yes" or "no" (and then elaborating on his answer, if he so wishes).

Did the United States save the UK in World War II?

Which is it, Cambridge: yes or no?

[The Colonel]

That's easy.

The answer is: No.

[Cambridge]

See, guys…all this is just getting in the way. I have a love for military history. Perhaps I should have majored in that instead of the history of political theory. I have guest lectured at West Point (on the nexus between political ideology and military strategy). My father spent hours with me telling me about naval tactics and events as he recalled them.

I lov talking about this stuff, but both of you seem to get distracted. I have not insulted anybody here and I do not believe that anyone has insulted me. I lov talking to you colonel about military matters. I lov talking to you rebman about military matters. Let’s stick to the subject. There’s just too much urine getting on us from this God-forsaken pissing match.

[Cambridge]

I am a bit confused as to Cambridge's position on the question whether the U.S. saved the UK in World War II.

At first, Cambridge not only agreed with me that the United States saved the UK in World War II, but he elaborated with additional factual averments:

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

But then Cambridge agreed with the Colonel's following comment that directly contradicts my position with which Cambridge not only agreed but also elaborated on (as quoted above):

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

I agree. Whatever beef you may have with myron, I am not him. Are we straight?

Perhaps Cambridge would be so kind as to clarify this irreconcilable contradiction in his posts by answering the question with a simple "yes" or "no" (and then elaborating on his answer, if he so wishes).

Did the United States save the UK in World War II?

Which is it, Cambridge: yes or no?

[myron myron]

See, guys…all this is just getting in the way. I have a love for military history. Perhaps I should have majored in that instead of the history of political theory. I have guest lectured at West Point (on the nexus between political ideology and military strategy). My father spent hours with me telling me about naval tactics and events as he recalled them.

I lov talking about this stuff, but both of you seem to get distracted. I have not insulted anybody here and I do not believe that anyone has insulted me. I lov talking to you colonel about military matters. I lov talking to you rebman about military matters. Let’s stick to the subject. There’s just too much urine getting on us from this God-forsaken pissing match.

Given your professed "love for military history," surely you have a definite position on the question whether the U.S. saved the UK in World War II.

Indeed, in this thread you have adopted two definite but irreconcilably contradictory positions.

To the extent this is a "pissing match," you have already waded into the urine.

So why are you dodging the question and punting now?

You are clearly not afraid to disagree with me.

Are you afraid to disagree with the Colonel?

[The Colonel]

"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our .. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British . and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour.""

-- Sir Winston Churchill.

[myron myron]

I am a bit confused as to Cambridge's position on the question whether the U.S. saved the UK in World War II.

At first, Cambridge not only agreed with me that the United States saved the UK in World War II, but he elaborated with additional factual averments:

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

But then Cambridge agreed with the Colonel's following comment that directly contradicts my position with which Cambridge not only agreed but also elaborated on (as quoted above):

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

I agree. Whatever beef you may have with myron, I am not him. Are we straight?

Perhaps Cambridge would be so kind as to clarify this irreconcilable contradiction in his posts by answering the question with a simple "yes" or "no" (and then elaborating on his answer, if he so wishes).

Did the United States save the UK in World War II?

Which is it, Cambridge: yes or no?

See, myron…this is why it is so important to read fully before you post. Here is what I said:

I, too, don’t believe there was a single savior in the recipe. There were many factors that helped save Britain, the absence of any one of which would have doomed the UK. So it is indeed fair to say that US production “saved” Britain, as did many other things, including American B-17s and B-24s, and the North American P-51D Mustangs, which were the first fighter aircraft that could accompany the bombers all the way to Berlin and back, and so outperformed the ME-109 that it spelled the end of the Luftwaffe. The P-51D rode the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, so that was a joint success.

In short, mr. lawyer, I reversed the logic of the question. I turned a question of ‘sufficient conditions’ into a question of ‘necessary conditions.’ No, America’s contribution was not ‘sufficient’ to save Britain. Yes, America’s contribution was ‘necessary’ to save Britain. Read Aristotle, myron.

Let’s get back to wwII history, shall we?

Your present semantic argument is belied by your posted words I have quoted in bolded red above.

And I have read Aristote (in the original Greek, no less), but my point is evident to anyone who can read simple English.