ChatterBank1 min ago
Are Daily Mail readers addicted to outrage?
Every day there's something that ruffles their not inconsiderable feathers.
Today it's the turn of David (call me Dave) Cameron:
http://www.dailymail....r-Americans-1940.html
Okay - he made a balls up, but judging by some of the reactions, you'd have thought he'd dropped his kecks and mooned the Queen.
Are Daily Mail readers in some kind of secret competition with hard line Muslims to see who can be more outraged about the greatest number of non-stories?
Today it's the turn of David (call me Dave) Cameron:
http://www.dailymail....r-Americans-1940.html
Okay - he made a balls up, but judging by some of the reactions, you'd have thought he'd dropped his kecks and mooned the Queen.
Are Daily Mail readers in some kind of secret competition with hard line Muslims to see who can be more outraged about the greatest number of non-stories?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not only the Daily Mail
http://tinyurl.com/34wn7wd
You may describe it has a non-story, but to anyone who lived during WW2, and to all those that made the supreme sacrifice it is a total insult.
Especially coming from the mouth of yet another weak cowering puppet of the US.
http://tinyurl.com/34wn7wd
You may describe it has a non-story, but to anyone who lived during WW2, and to all those that made the supreme sacrifice it is a total insult.
Especially coming from the mouth of yet another weak cowering puppet of the US.
there's always this old favourite http://tinyurl.com/33box63
May I suggest that David Cameron watches the TV series (currently being repeated) called The World at War. It might, just might, allow him to understand that Britain really did save the world and there's no junior partner about it. I occasionally read the Daily Mail - and on this occasion I feel that outrage is the correct response! This is our Prime Minister showing a huge lack of knowledge/respect for his country-men/women for heaven's sake. (Gawd help us all.....)
> that Britain really did save the world
I think we would not have done so if the USA had not come in and helped.
You mention world at War. I just watched World at War yesterday, about the africa desert campaign (Torbruk etc)
Our tanks were crap, they kept breaking down, and we had no tank transporters to get them off the battle field to repair them, so we lost hundreds of tanks.
Then Monty took over, and hundreds of American tanks arrived.
We then had the battle of El Alemian were our American tanks beat Rommel and his German tanks (we outnumbered him by about 8 tanks to 1).
So if the USA had not supplied those tanks the desert war could have turned out very different.
Just one example of how the USA came to our rescue. We were struggling up to then.
I think we would not have done so if the USA had not come in and helped.
You mention world at War. I just watched World at War yesterday, about the africa desert campaign (Torbruk etc)
Our tanks were crap, they kept breaking down, and we had no tank transporters to get them off the battle field to repair them, so we lost hundreds of tanks.
Then Monty took over, and hundreds of American tanks arrived.
We then had the battle of El Alemian were our American tanks beat Rommel and his German tanks (we outnumbered him by about 8 tanks to 1).
So if the USA had not supplied those tanks the desert war could have turned out very different.
Just one example of how the USA came to our rescue. We were struggling up to then.
Possibly. Still not a junior partner. And don't forget Lend Lease. Everything the Yanks sent us (most if it was old, out-of-date, needed repair etc) was paid for - took Britain years to pay the debt off. The Americans also made sure that the British Empire never recovered after the war. They were determined to be the masters of the universe, so to speak. Don't let us make the mistake of thinking the Yanks saved the world, 'cos they didn't. Look at the mess they got themselves into over Vietnam. Thanks to Harold Wilson we weren't involved.
The concept of war is an interesting one.
At the time of the Falklands War, the then Cabinet was extremely reluctant to enter into an armed conflict for one simple reason. With the exception of one member, every person in the Cabinet had faught in the last War, and had personal military experience of combat - which understandably gave them an insight into just what it means to send men and women into battle - a decision not to be taken lightly.
Fast forward to Iraq and Afghanistan - and the then Governments have no experience of warfare - to them it is an academic exercise with the highly dangerous caveat of the possibility of covering themselves in glory, and being able to get their names into history books.
But to respond to your Question sp1814 - the Mail does indeed have an ongoing agenda of a 'have you seen this ...!' style or reportage - which sells newspapers.
What does worry me, is our slide into the same approach the American media have had for the last fifty years - that of scare-mongering. Dressing up dubious scientific possibilities as hard facts - Aids, swine flu, bird flu (what happened there?) and of course the meat-and-potatoes double whammies of extremism and immigration.
ctd.
At the time of the Falklands War, the then Cabinet was extremely reluctant to enter into an armed conflict for one simple reason. With the exception of one member, every person in the Cabinet had faught in the last War, and had personal military experience of combat - which understandably gave them an insight into just what it means to send men and women into battle - a decision not to be taken lightly.
Fast forward to Iraq and Afghanistan - and the then Governments have no experience of warfare - to them it is an academic exercise with the highly dangerous caveat of the possibility of covering themselves in glory, and being able to get their names into history books.
But to respond to your Question sp1814 - the Mail does indeed have an ongoing agenda of a 'have you seen this ...!' style or reportage - which sells newspapers.
What does worry me, is our slide into the same approach the American media have had for the last fifty years - that of scare-mongering. Dressing up dubious scientific possibilities as hard facts - Aids, swine flu, bird flu (what happened there?) and of course the meat-and-potatoes double whammies of extremism and immigration.
ctd.
....
Cameron has been careless in his speech, but the message behind it is clear. the Allied forces are slowly educating their respective electorates that a pull-out by 2015, with the Afghans 'in charge' can be perceived as a 'victory', and 'getting the job done'.
The fact that they will leave a riven country with a corrupt puppet government which will immediately be oblitorated by The Taliban, as things come full circle, will be quietly ignored.
History only remembers its victories - so if there isn't a victory, we'll just have to make one up.
Cameron's speech yesterday was the first seed of this abhorent nonsense being sown - watch and listen as everyone picks up this notion and makes it 'fact' - because if we 'win', none of the deaths will have been in vain.
Cameron has been careless in his speech, but the message behind it is clear. the Allied forces are slowly educating their respective electorates that a pull-out by 2015, with the Afghans 'in charge' can be perceived as a 'victory', and 'getting the job done'.
The fact that they will leave a riven country with a corrupt puppet government which will immediately be oblitorated by The Taliban, as things come full circle, will be quietly ignored.
History only remembers its victories - so if there isn't a victory, we'll just have to make one up.
Cameron's speech yesterday was the first seed of this abhorent nonsense being sown - watch and listen as everyone picks up this notion and makes it 'fact' - because if we 'win', none of the deaths will have been in vain.
These arguments about who won the war overlook the complex interdependencies.
For example:
Soviet Russia fought with the greater part of the German forces - eventually!
Arguably, they would not have been in any position to counter attack if we and the americans hadn't supplied them and most crucially, if Britain had not held out, Hitler could have committed more forces to the eastern front and swept through to the caucasus and moscow before winter.
Yes the americans put in more resources than Britain, but if this country had not held out the americans would have faced a world where all of europe, north africa, the middle east and what was the soviet union was controlled by Germany, all the way to the pacific where their allies the japanese could have swept through the rest of asia and australia.
With all those resources at their disposal, the axis would have been unbeatable.
.
For example:
Soviet Russia fought with the greater part of the German forces - eventually!
Arguably, they would not have been in any position to counter attack if we and the americans hadn't supplied them and most crucially, if Britain had not held out, Hitler could have committed more forces to the eastern front and swept through to the caucasus and moscow before winter.
Yes the americans put in more resources than Britain, but if this country had not held out the americans would have faced a world where all of europe, north africa, the middle east and what was the soviet union was controlled by Germany, all the way to the pacific where their allies the japanese could have swept through the rest of asia and australia.
With all those resources at their disposal, the axis would have been unbeatable.
.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Technology13 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News15 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
ChatterBank33 mins ago
Home & Garden33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.