Is America treating the UK like a colony?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because that was a state visit.
.

A visit is a visit. Only one thing for it, in order to make up for slighting Mr Trump we should name a motorway chipper after him? We done it for Obama.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

A visit is a visit. Only one thing for it, in order to make up for slighting Mr Trump we should name a motorway chipper after him? We done it for Obama.

No, 'we' didn't. A few carried away edjits did.

The visit got the significance it deserved, a courtesy chat while Trump carried out private business engagements. Nothing else was expected.

threeball

janfebmar wrote: »

Precisely the point I made. Leo never had the majority vote of the electorate, and when we voted, he was not Taoiseach.

You don't make points. You type evasive uninformed waffle. Yet again you need to be told, you don't elect a Taoiseach. FF could team up with the greens next time and might come to the agreement that Eamon Ryan should be Taoiseach. Are you going to complain you didn't vote for that.

Going by your standard your beloved Boris better call a snap election as soon as he's confirmed as Tory leader.

janfebmar

threeball wrote: »

Going by your standard your beloved Boris better call a snap election as soon as he's confirmed as Tory leader.

He is not my beloved Boris. At least you are now admitting that the dastardly undemocratic British have elections.

mickoneill31

This thread has jumped the shark.

janfebmar

mickoneill31 wrote: »

This thread has jumped the shark.

The title of the thread was a loaded question anyway.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

The title of the thread was a loaded question anyway.

You have been desperately trying to deflect from the title question so it must be hitting a nerve somewhere.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have been desperately trying to deflect from the title question so it must be hitting a nerve somewhere.

You are just jealous of the special relationship between the US and UK, the greatest alliance the world has ever seen (according to arguably the most powerful man in the world, the President of the USA himself).

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You are just jealous of the special relationship between the US and UK, the greatest alliance the world has ever seen (according to arguably the most powerful man in the world, the President of the USA himself).

It was always going to happen that a dead imperialist former empire was going to play lickspittle to the current big guys. They do it very well.
Not having an imperialist bone in my body, I am not jealous at all. Just sad that some of the people I respsect most have to live in that sad former empire.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not having an imperialist bone in my body, I am not jealous at all.

It is quite obvious it is nagging at you that the US have a better relationship with the UK than with us. What happened awkward Leo's plans to ask for our emigrants to the US to be given the same visa opportunities as the Australians / be treated equally as well as the Aussies?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It is quite obvious it is nagging at you that the US have a better relationship with the UK than with us. What happened awkward Leo's plans to ask for our emigrants to the US to be given the same visa opportunities as the Australians / be treated equally as well as the Aussies?

Ask Leo that? What relevance has it got to this thread?

I have no interest ina special relationship with Trump or the US for that matter. We take from them and they take from us. So what?

Duckworth_Luas

janfebmar wrote: »

You are just jealous of the special relationship between the US and UK, the greatest alliance the world has ever seen (according to arguably the most powerful man in the world, the President of the USA himself).

Former most powerful man in the world, President Barack Obama, seemed to believe that the USA "don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than .... the French".

Even the Daily Mail agree that there's no special relationship between the USA and the UK.

But then this is janfebmar/maryishere/japer/gigno/jimmmy, the regular rereg who once claimed that during WW2 Allied airmen would routinely toss their own excrement out of their aircraft by the handful to land on neutral Irish soil.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask Leo that? What relevance has it got to this thread?

Because before our taoiseach met President Trump, it was hoped by many he would bring up issues of concern to Ireland, such as the visa situation for so many Irish people in America, who cannot come home to funerals etc. If we were a valued colony of America wouldn't we be treated at least as well as the Aussies there?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Because before our taoiseach met President Trump, it was hoped by many he would bring up issues of concern to Ireland, such as the visa situation for so many Irish people in America, who cannot come home to funerals etc. If we were a valued colony of America wouldn't we be treated at least as well as the Aussies there?

We'd also have to ride shotgun for them on their various imperialist capers. So I am delighted we are not a colony. Seems to suit the British better though as they have a memory of being a similar imperial bully.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'd also have to ride shotgun for them on their various imperialist capers.

Fighting the Nazi to save the world from fascism was an "imperialist caper" now? Good job we did not have to ride shotgun with the USA on that, it was must safer to let other countries liberate the neutral countries the Axis powers invaded.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Fighting the Nazi to save the world from fascism was an "imperialist caper" now? Good job we did not have to ride shotgun with the USA on that, it was must safer to let other countries liberate the neutral countries the Axis powers invaded.

The US and the Russians took care of the Nazis after the British ran home. That was probably the final end of them as an imperial power in their own right. They have been hanging on the US coat tails since. We should be thankful the US let them as they might have gone with the Rooskies!

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The US and the Russians took care of the Nazis after the British ran home. That was probably the final end of them as an imperial power in their own right. They have been hanging on the US coat tails since. We should be thankful the US let them as they might have gone with the Rooskies!

I wouldn't worry about the English if I were you,I'd be more worried about Scotland and fishing rights!:)

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about the English if I were you,I'd be more worried about Scotland and fishing rights!:)

You are back Rob


*nobody mention the pesky Dutch now!

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The US and the Russians took care of the Nazis after the British ran home. That was probably the final end of them as an imperial power in their own right. They have been hanging on the US coat tails since. We should be thankful the US let them as they might have gone with the Rooskies!

The English Channel saved Britain. Nobody could have withstood the Wehrmacht. When it came to the Allied Forces the Wehrmacht ground army were superior fighters with superior equipment.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The English Channel saved Britain.

They were a busted flush. Retreating and broke. Hitler didn't want them anyway. He was happy to keep them where they where

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The English Channel saved Britain. Nobody could have withstood the Wehrmacht. When it came to the Allied Forces the Wehrmacht ground army were superior fighters with superior equipment.

Tom,you need to say that in a German accent.

janfebmar

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The English Channel saved Britain.
Nobody could have withstood the Wehrmacht. When it came to the Allied Forces the Wehrmacht ground army were superior fighters with superior equipment.

Not always. The British / commonwealth forces were able to beat them in North Africa, for example. Long before the Americans engaged the Germans on the ground. And the Germans lost out in the end in the air and at sea too.

As someone else said, without British intelligence, the allies would have been left at a distinct disadvantage, unable to crack the enigma code, and it was the British intelligence services that created the largest misdirection campaigns in history, forcing Germany to send tens of thousands of troops away from the front to defend against imagined invasions.

thomasj

janfebmar wrote: »

Trump was elected President of the US, while Varadker was never elected Taoiseach here, is that your point?

No.

Varadkar was elected by TDs

Trump was elected by the electoral college , despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

Junkyard Tom

RobMc59 wrote: »

Tom,you need to say that in a German accent.

I'm only paraphrasing people like Winston Churchill, Historian Max Hastings, and many more Rob.

"The superiority of the Germans in design, management and energy were plain ... At Narvik a mixed and improvised German force barely six thousand strong held at bay for six weeks some twenty thousand Allied troops ... The Germans traversed in seven days the road from Namsos to Mosjoen which the British and French had declared impassable ... We .. were out-paced by the enemy ... some of our finest troops, the Scots and Irish Guards, were baffled by the vigour, enterprise and training of Hitler’s young men."

Winston Churchill

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'm only paraphrasing people like Winston Churchill, Historian Max Hastings, and many more Rob.

I think your right,the German tactic of blitzkrieg was virtually impossible to stop.

Fan of Netflix

Winston Churchill was worse than Hitler. A truly evil man.

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were a busted flush. Retreating and broke. Hitler didn't want them anyway. He was happy to keep them where they where

Except he couldn't, could he?
The commemoration of D-Day, just passed, contradicts your assessment.

janfebmar

thomasj wrote: »

Varadkar was elected by TDs

Correct, he was not elected by the electorate; he was not Taoiseach or even lined up to be Taoiseach when there was an election. His rival Coveney had the support of more Fine Gael members than Varadkar, but the electoral college system more strongly weighted the votes of the party's parliamentarians.

By contrast, in the US elections, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227, as two faithless electors defected from Trump and five defected from Clinton.

Trumps popular vote was 63 million. Varadkars was how many hundred thousand?

Fan of Netflix

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Winston Churchill was worse than Hitler. A truly evil man.

no, he really wasn't.

FrancieBrady

indioblack wrote: »

D-Day,

Which wouldn't have happened had the Yanks not bailed Britain out (Roosevelt had to organise special loans for them) and gotten involved themselves. I always find it endlessly amusing how the British have turned Dunkirk into something glorious when it was a retreat for their lives.

ygolometsipe

Help


I got a message saying I cannot post in politics cafe, any ideas why?


ygolometsipe, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Junkyard Tom

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think your right,the German tactic of blitzkrieg was virtually impossible to stop.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they were defeated and I'm glad the Nazi eugenicist*/fascist ideology was destroyed and it should never ever be allowed to rear its ugly head again.


*Big names like George Bernard Shaw, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and William Beveridge were big supporters of Eugenics before WWII.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which wouldn't have happened had the Yanks not bailed Britain out (Roosevelt had to organise special loans for them) and gotten involved themselves.

And it wound;t have happeend if the British had given up, either.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always find it endlessly amusing how the British have turned Dunkirk into something glorious when it was a retreat for their lives.

yes, you probably do, but that is because you really really don't get it.

FrancieBrady

ygolometsipe wrote: »

Help


I got a message saying I cannot post in politics cafe, any ideas why?


ygolometsipe, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753981

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

And it wound;t have happeend if the British had given up, either.



yes, you probably do, but that is because you really really don't get it.

Oh I get it...I really really do.

ygolometsipe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057753981

Thanks a lot!! I didn't know some forums are request only!!

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which wouldn't have happened had the Yanks not bailed Britain out (Roosevelt had to organise special loans for them) and gotten involved themselves. I always find it endlessly amusing how the British have turned Dunkirk into something glorious when it was a retreat for their lives.

I made no mention of the Americans - or Dunkirk.
The war couldn't have been won without them. And the Russians, too.
Nevertheless, Britain's role in returning to the continent was significant - supplying 90 percent of the shipping, for example.
Definitely not a busted flush.

FrancieBrady

indioblack wrote: »

I made no mention of the Americans - or Dunkirk.
The war couldn't have been won without them. And the Russians, too.
Nevertheless, Britain's role in returning to the continent was significant - supplying 90 percent of the shipping, for example.
Definitely not a busted flush.

America refinanced them. After Dunkirk it is accurate to describe them as a busted flush.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which wouldn't have happened had the Yanks not bailed Britain out (Roosevelt had to organise special loans for them) and gotten involved themselves. I always find it endlessly amusing how the British have turned Dunkirk into something glorious when it was a retreat for their lives.

Retreating at Dunkirk was the prudent thing to do. The French or others did not make much of an effort stopping the Germans then either. However the British and Commonwealth did not give up, only a few years later they took on 116,000 Axis troops at the battle of El Alamein for example and defeated them.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Retreating at Dunkirk was the prudent thing to do. The French or others did not make much of an effort stopping the Germans then either. However the British and Commonwealth did not give up, only a few years later they took on 116,000 Axis troops at the battle of El Alamein for example and defeated them.

Only because Britain/Churchill had to beg America for money and arms.

As Roosevelt addressed Congress, the Battle of Britain was in its full destructive swing and Hitler seemed on the verge of invading Great Britain. The cash-strapped Brits desperately needed airplanes, tanks and ships to fight Hitler’s imminent invasion. For months, Britain’s prime minister, Winston Churchill, had begged Roosevelt for help, but the president was committed to abiding by Americans’ wishes to stay out of another bloody world war.

The lend-lease program provided for military aid to any country whose defense was vital to the security of the United States.

Britain has it sussed, they know who their master is now. I.E. they are a colony of the US.

#close thread.

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

America refinanced them. After Dunkirk it is accurate to describe them as a busted flush.

Not good enough. Your post referred to Britain both financially and militarily.
Wars have to be paid for. Wall Street and the US government supplied loans to Britain in both world wars. These loans had to be repaid - with interest. And they were.
It was vital for Britain to stay in opposition to the Third Reich. Geography, luck, Hitler's half-hearted desire to invade all helped this to happen.
And the Americans. And effort. A lot of effort.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which wouldn't have happened had the Yanks not bailed Britain out (Roosevelt had to organise special loans for them) and gotten involved themselves. I always find it endlessly amusing how the British have turned Dunkirk into something glorious when it was a retreat for their lives.

Slightly better than sending Irish condolences on the sad demise of Adolf though? Yes?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

America refinanced them. After Dunkirk it is accurate to describe them as a busted flush.

You really are a bitter little person, aren’t you.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

You really are a bitter little person, aren’t you.

Not at all. I just don't buy into British-centric versions of history. The bitterness seems to be coming from those who wish to paint a retreat as a victory of some sort.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not at all. I just don't buy into British-centric versions of history. The bitterness seems to be coming from those who wish to paint a retreat as a victory of some sort.

No one does paint it as a victory though, do they?

You just don’t get it

FrancieBrady

indioblack wrote: »

Not good enough. Your post referred to Britain both financially and militarily.
Wars have to be paid for. Wall Street and the US government supplied loans to Britain in both world wars. These loans had to be repaid - with interest. And they were.
It was vital for Britain to stay in opposition to the Third Reich. Geography, luck, Hitler's half-hearted desire to invade all helped this to happen.
And the Americans. And effort. A lot of effort.

After Dunkirk they were a busted flush until the AMericans refinanced and re armed them.

Please tell me how that statement is wrong?

_blaaz

timthumbni wrote: »

Slightly better than sending Irish condolences on the sad demise of Adolf though? Yes?

Tbf ireland was a neutral.country so had no reason not to?

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not at all. I just don't buy into British-centric versions of history. The bitterness seems to be coming from those who wish to paint a retreat as a victory of some sort.

Then I suggest you read Nicholas Harmon's book, "The Necessary Myth".
Churchill's words after Dunkirk are more succinct, "Wars are not won by evacuations".

timthumbni

_blaaz wrote: »

Tbf ireland was a neutral.country so had no reason not to?

So the republic had no reason not to send your best wishes to the Germans on the death of Adolf? During the second WW?

Aw come on now ffs....

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

After Dunkirk they were a busted flush until the AMericans refinanced and re armed them.

Please tell me how that statement is wrong?

Try this. In 1940 Germany manufactured 10,000 aircraft of all types.
Britain built 15,000.
Of course they wanted American help. But they weren't toothless in this period of the war.