America please F***k off

[The Colonel]

You've read Aristotle? More like watched Kojak.

[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.

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?

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?

If you don’t understand Aristotle’s distinctions between necessary and sufficient conditions, then we probably can’t communicate about the subject, myron. The ambiguity is in the question, not in my answer. You simply don’t speak the language of Aristotle. This is first year philosophy and argument and frankly I'm sure there are many out there who understand…you are not one of them, myron.

Am I afraid to disagree with you, Colonel? You can answer that. I've already told everyone that, as an individual, I am independent-minded and not afraid to speak my mind…much as I believe that what the Colonel has to say is quite valuable.

Am I afraid to admit I'm wrong? You can answer that rebman. Was I afraid to admit my error when your excellent research uncovered my error? I believe you when you say your are knowledgeable about wwII history, and I would lov to learn more from you.

Myron, you are obviously of a mind to reinvigorate our long-standing debate…I'm just not in the mood right now. Forget it eh pal? Frankly, I'm not interested in prattle about nonsense right now.

[myron myron]

You've read Aristotle? More like watched Kojak.

And you admittedly watch videos of infant male circumcisions.

[The Colonel]

You've read Aristotle? More like watched Kojak.

And you admittedly watch videos of infant male circumcisions.

One must watch such things in order to form an opinion on whether it is right or wrong. Very curious you can't even make up your mind.

[myron myron]

You've read Aristotle? More like watched Kojak.

And you admittedly watch videos of infant male circumcisions.

One must watch such things in order to form an opinion on whether it is right or wrong. Very curious you can't even make up your mind.

Almost every adult has formed an opinion on "whether it is right or wrong" without ever having to "watch such things."

You have admittedly tracked down and studied numerous videos of male infant circumcisions being performed.

You incessantly post about male infant circumcision throughout the forum.

You are the "very curious" one.

[Cambridge]

Surprise...you'v awakened a giant here.

Are we going to turn this into a thread on circumcision? Ok, colonel, here goes. I don’t believe in parents circumcising their children. As I have said, it is a violation of their privacy and personal rights. Circumcison is basically a cosmetic operation, having nothing to do with any beneficial health considerations.

My father was a professor of Medicine at Harvard University and he participated in a US Navy study in which it was determined that circumcision resulted in nothing but that circumcised individuals had more urinary tract infections than uncircumcised individuals.

The latest bullshit out of the French/South African study saying there is a connection between circumcision and aids is bogus. Findings were so fabricated that the French doctors pulled out of the study, refusing to be a part of the fraud.

Your association of uncircumcised dicks with smegma is totally f*cked. First, smegma is a very valuable substance that protects both the male and the female organs…as I have posted elsewhere. Second, hygiene is not an unfamiliar subject. Haven’t you ever taken a shower?

Having said that, I think I know what is going on here. Americans in the Victorian age, for reasons I will be glad to discuss, were routinely circumcised, and the uncircumcised became the outsiders. In Britain, the uncircumcised were the norm and those circumcised individuals in school were called “baldy” and other derisive names that hurt.

As a result, sides were formed for reasons of defense.. I totally understand the pain that young British boys went through in their development. They were victimized and called “baldy” and other derisive names. But, circumcision has no more legitimacy than tattoos. The question has nothing to do with social acceptance. It has to do with science. And science says there is no reason for circumcision. Uncircumcised boys in American are victimized as much as are circumcised boys in Britain.

If you circumcise your child under the age of 18-years, you are a criminal. Maybe I'm not being clear. You should be in prison for a year or two.

Are we underrstood?

[The Colonel]

You've read Aristotle? More like watched Kojak.

And you admittedly watch videos of infant male circumcisions.

One must watch such things in order to form an opinion on whether it is right or wrong. Very curious you can't even make up your mind.

Almost every adult has formed an opinion on "whether it is right or wrong" without ever having to "watch such things."

You have admittedly tracked down and studied numerous videos of male infant circumcisions being performed.

You incessantly post about male infant circumcision throughout the forum.

You are the "very curious" one.

I am not going to discuss my personal details, least of all with you.

Even a bird brain would know that a) my wife is a GP and b) my eldest son had to have the operation performed for a medical problem.

Thus, it is hardly "curious"

[The Colonel]

Surprise...you'v awakened a giant here.

Are we going to turn this into a thread on circumcision? Ok, colonel, here goes. I don’t believe in parents circumcising their children. As I have said, it is a violation of their privacy and personal rights. Circumcison is basically a cosmetic operation, having nothing to do with any beneficial health considerations.

I hope you note that I didn't mention it here - myron brought that into this thread - not me.

My father was a professor of Medicine at Harvard University and he participated in a US Navy study in which it was determined that circumcision resulted in nothing but that circumcised individuals had more urinary tract infections than uncircumcised individuals.

The latest bullshit out of the French/South African study saying there is a connection between circumcision and aids is bogus. Findings were so fabricated that the French doctors pulled out of the study, refusing to be a part of the fraud.

Your association of uncircumcised dicks with smegma is totally f*cked. First, smegma is a very valuable substance that protects both the male and the female organs…as I have posted elsewhere. Second, hygiene is not an unfamiliar subject. Haven’t you ever taken a shower?

I was only joking about that! Most people tend to realise that it was a joke as opposed to a serious statement!

It was posted to myron since he is a very "cheesy" indvidual, and so I thought the name suited him.

Having said that, I think I know what is going on here. Americans in the Victorian age, for reasons I will be glad to discuss, were routinely circumcised, and the uncircumcised became the outsiders. In Britain, the uncircumcised were the norm and those circumcised individuals in school were called “baldy” and other derisive names that hurt.

That isn't entirely true. The better off classes used to do it - the commoners didn't.

As a result, sides were formed for reasons of defense.. I totally understand the pain that young British boys went through in their development. They were victimized and called “baldy” and other derisive names. But, circumcision has no more legitimacy than tattoos. The question has nothing to do with social acceptance. It has to do with science. And science says there is no reason for circumcision. Uncircumcised boys in American are victimized as much as are circumcised boys in Britain.

I agree.

If you circumcise your child under the age of 18-years, you are a criminal. Maybe I'm not being clear. You should be in prison for a year or two.

Are we underrstood?

There is nothing I have to understand about it - I'm on the same page as you are on the issue.

[dudeski]

That's easy.

The answer is: No.

G'morning.

I'm sorry, I know I'm coming late to this discussion and am jumping in the middle. May I ask to more fully understand what you are saying?

I'm just curious, as a student of such things -- are you suggesting that the USA's role in WWII did *not* help Britain survive? That Britain would have won the war even without any help at all from the USA?

Or are you only saying that the USA alone did not save Britain all by itself, but was one (*very big*) piece of the alliance that saved Britain?

If the second, I think you're playing with a straw man, unless I missed someone's post. I'm not aware of anyone saying the USA did it all alone. But I think it would be very hard to believe that the allies would have won without the USA. Or the involvement of the USSR, in fact. I was under the impression that it would be accurate to say both the USA and USSR helped "save" Britain.

I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts on that subject, if you have the time.

[The Colonel]

That's easy.

The answer is: No.

G'morning.

I'm sorry, I know I'm coming late to this discussion and am jumping in the middle. May I ask to more fully understand what you are saying?

I'm just curious, as a student of such things -- are you suggesting that the USA's role in WWII did *not* help Britain survive?

No, I am not suggesting that. Help they did. Save our "ass"? No.

That Britain would have won the war even without any help at all from the USA?

Potentially, yes.

I say this because:

- Most of our supplies came from our own territories.
- By the time the US entered the war (and the USSR) Britain had won victories and was on the offensive, and not defensive.
- Our advances in technology were second to none.
- We had broken the German codes allowing for U-Boats, warships, aircraft, air-raids and troop movements to be pinpointed, and numerous successful attacks were made as a result.
- Commando raids were enormously successful (e.g. preventing the Nazis from getting the atom bomb by blowing up the factory in Norway)
- Our moral was unbeatable,
- Our navy the most feared in the world, our air force very strong.

(plus many more I could go into).

HOWEVER,

I do accept it would have been harder and longer without the US and USSR. I do not think it would have been impossible however.

Churchill said "Hitler must break us in this Island or lose the war". We didn't break - and he lost.

Remember Churchill's words - We will FIGHT them on the beaches. We will FIGHT them in the STREETS. We FIGHT them on the seas and oceans...we will NEVER surrender.

Anyone who isn't British, just doesn't understand British people. Churchill sums us up brilliantly there. We would fight to the death for every last inch of earth. This isn't just an island - it's a fortress with 60 million soldiers. Come what may, as Orwell said "There will always be an England". Damn flaming right.

Consider this:

Churchill was going to die in defence of Britain. He wasn't going to flee.

Stalin however, did consider surrendering to Hitler - and Stalin was a tough man.

What would Roosevelt have done? I can't answer that question. I don't know the answer.

But the British character is unbeatable. The people of London wrote slogans such as "Dear Adolf, You can break our windows - but not our hearts".

It is because of this I have such faith in my people.

Or are you only saying that the USA alone did not save Britain all by itself, but was one (*very big*) piece of the alliance that saved Britain?

It was a piece certainly. I do not think it was bigger than Britain or the USSR's contribution. Remember, the US did not directly suffer during the war.

If the second, I think you're playing with a straw man, unless I missed someone's post. I'm not aware of anyone saying the USA did it all alone. But I think it would be very hard to believe that the allies would have won without the USA. Or the involvement of the USSR, in fact. I was under the impression that it would be accurate to say both the USA and USSR helped "save" Britain.

Helped I would agree with.

However, by that token, Britain helped saved the USSR and US too.

I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts on that subject, if you have the time.

[dudeski]

[color=red]I do accept it would have been harder and longer without the US and USSR. I do not think it would have been impossible however.

Churchill said "Hitler must break us in this Island or lose the war". We didn't break - and he lost.

Interesting thoughts.

On first reflection, it seems to me that if Germany hadn't had to spend the resources fighting against the US/USSR, then they would have had plenty of resources available to defeat Britain.

That seems only logical. Am I missing something?

I'd also agree that Britain and the US helped save the USSR, without a doubt.

Altho the theory that anyone saved the US seems . . . controversial, at best? If Germany had defeated Britain, and then tried to implement their plan to invade the US, it is *highly* unlikely they would have been successful.

If I'm reading too much into your posts, forgive me, but you sound as if you feel that admitting Britain needed help to win the war is in some way slighting the British military. Personally, I don't feel that way at all. Winning that war was about production, long term production.

Am I mistaken?

[The Colonel]

I do accept it would have been harder and longer without the US and USSR. I do not think it would have been impossible however.

Churchill said "Hitler must break us in this Island or lose the war". We didn't break - and he lost.

Interesting thoughts.

On first reflection, it seems to me that if Germany hadn't had to spend the resources fighting against the US/USSR, then they would have had plenty of resources available to defeat Britain.

That seems only logical. Am I missing something?

[color=red]They tried that in 1940 - the whole Nazi war machine directed against us, and only us - and lost.

I'd also agree that Britain and the US helped save the USSR, without a doubt.

Altho the theory that anyone saved the US seems . . . controversial, at best?

Not at all, see below.

If Germany had defeated Britain, and then tried to implement their plan to invade the US, it is *highly* unlikely they would have been successful.

Not true. The . would have fallen into German hands, and as Churchill said again - the whole world, including the United States, would fall.

The Japanese after Pearl Harbor could have invaded most of the US successful (had they had the means to do so etc.)

General George C. Marshal told Roosevelt that if the Japs invaded (right after Pearl) they would "penetrate as far as Chicago before we could stop them".

If I'm reading too much into your posts, forgive me, but you sound as if you feel that admitting Britain needed help to win the war is in some way slighting the British military.

Not at all. Napoleon was defeated by a large alliance - Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria and also Flemish troops. We won, together.

However, I cannot abide lies against the UK.

When Uncle Sam sat on his fat arse at the beginning of the war, and let France and most of Europe fall, it is a huge insult for them to say "we saved you". And further, the statement just isn't true.

It's a bit like as a child, cleaning up a shared bedroom with a sibling, one doing all the hard slog, and the other taking the credit for it. It's a kick in the teeth pure and simple.

Personally, I don't feel that way at all. Winning that war was about production, long term production.

Am I mistaken?

[dudeski]

They tried that in 1940 - the whole Nazi war machine directed against us, and only us - and lost.

For one year, yes. But that war was about more than one year. As I said, winning that war, strategically, was about long-term production. In later years, if Germany had not needed the resources it used against the USSR and US, if instead they had been able to bring those resources to bear against Britain, there is no way Britain could have survived, from everything I am aware of.

Secondly, Germany and Japan *never* had the resources necessary to successfully invade the US, much less the support capabilities to wage an action so far from their supply bases. I've never even heard the suggestion that they did before. Would you mind if I asked some more detail about how you feel they would have been able to?

I do agree that the US should have gotten into the war sooner. Scratch that, I do agree that the US should have stepped in *before* the war, probably when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. Altho I know the excuses, the American public didn't want to be involved, yada yada. But like Bush, I believe FDR should have just damned the torpedoes and done what was right. He may not have been able to be President for life, as he was, but it would have saved millions of lives.

[Cambridge]

They tried that in 1940 - the whole Nazi war machine directed against us, and only us - and lost.

For one year, yes. But that war was about more than one year. As I said, winning that war, strategically, was about long-term production. In later years, if Germany had not needed the resources it used against the USSR and US, if instead they had been able to bring those resources to bear against Britain, there is no way Britain could have survived, from everything I am aware of.

Secondly, Germany and Japan *never* had the resources necessary to successfully invade the US, much less the support capabilities to wage an action so far from their supply bases. I've never even heard the suggestion that they did before. Would you mind if I asked some more detail about how you feel they would have been able to?

I do agree that the US should have gotten into the war sooner. Scratch that, I do agree that the US should have stepped in *before* the war, probably when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. Altho I know the excuses, the American public didn't want to be involved, yada yada. But like Bush, I believe FDR should have just damned the torpedoes and done what was right. He may not have been able to be President for life, as he was, but it would have saved millions of lives.

You make a lot of sense dudeski, but you’ve got to appreciate that those were different times. In the 1930s, Europe was way far away and Japan was thought to be a joke. In fact, as Midway and the Battle of the Marianas proved, they pretty much were a joke. But a persistent adversary that outlasted Germany. In effect, they were the suicide bomber of the day, and for that reason the atomic bomb had to be used.

As far as Europe is concerned, look at it from the US point of view. WWII was started by Germany invading Poland, right? Now the US didn’t give a s**t about Poland at the time. Most of the people in the US didn’t know where Poland was. But the UK and France declare war on Germany and provoke WWII. Huh? This place called Poland and now we’re supposed to help? Most Americans were like, I don't think so.

The US was not a world leader in the 1930s. There weren’t the scenario posers that there are today. When Germany reoccupied the Rhur Valley nobody even knew what that was. Most Americans knew Squall Valley better than the Rhur Valley. Granted it was a major move for Germany, but who knew at the time?

Today things are different. The US still loves guns, bullets and killing as its favorite sport. Now just hold that thought and put it in the context of America being a world leader and you’ve got Iraq. If Iraq has done anything, it has taught stupid America that guns and killing can’t do it all. Maybe…just maybe…America might start growing up.

[Cambridge]

Surprise...you'v awakened a giant here.

Are we going to turn this into a thread on circumcision? Ok, colonel, here goes. I don’t believe in parents circumcising their children. As I have said, it is a violation of their privacy and personal rights. Circumcison is basically a cosmetic operation, having nothing to do with any beneficial health considerations.

I hope you note that I didn't mention it here - myron brought that into this thread - not me.

My father was a professor of Medicine at Harvard University and he participated in a US Navy study in which it was determined that circumcision resulted in nothing but that circumcised individuals had more urinary tract infections than uncircumcised individuals.

The latest bullshit out of the French/South African study saying there is a connection between circumcision and aids is bogus. Findings were so fabricated that the French doctors pulled out of the study, refusing to be a part of the fraud.

Your association of uncircumcised dicks with smegma is totally f*cked. First, smegma is a very valuable substance that protects both the male and the female organs…as I have posted elsewhere. Second, hygiene is not an unfamiliar subject. Haven’t you ever taken a shower?

I was only joking about that! Most people tend to realise that it was a joke as opposed to a serious statement!

It was posted to myron since he is a very "cheesy" indvidual, and so I thought the name suited him.

Having said that, I think I know what is going on here. Americans in the Victorian age, for reasons I will be glad to discuss, were routinely circumcised, and the uncircumcised became the outsiders. In Britain, the uncircumcised were the norm and those circumcised individuals in school were called “baldy” and other derisive names that hurt.

That isn't entirely true. The better off classes used to do it - the commoners didn't.

As a result, sides were formed for reasons of defense.. I totally understand the pain that young British boys went through in their development. They were victimized and called “baldy” and other derisive names. But, circumcision has no more legitimacy than tattoos. The question has nothing to do with social acceptance. It has to do with science. And science says there is no reason for circumcision. Uncircumcised boys in American are victimized as much as are circumcised boys in Britain.

I agree.

If you circumcise your child under the age of 18-years, you are a criminal. Maybe I'm not being clear. You should be in prison for a year or two.

Are we underrstood?

There is nothing I have to understand about it - I'm on the same page as you are on the issue.

Colonel, I'm sorry if I went off on you. But this is no joke. I don’t care if the UPPER CLASS in Britain took 60% per cent of sexual pleasure away from their young men (that’s the amount of nerve receptors that are in the foreskin). If I were the parent of a retarded child would I want to hear someone going on about “retards” and “stupid dumskies?”

Sexual organs are very private, and very sensitive. Let’s say we’re talking about breasts. We’ve all seen areolas of varying sizes. What if I started calling some woman, “hey, dinner plate,” because her areolas were over-sized. Fair? I don’t think so. So, let’s not discuss it anymore, okay?