On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:26:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:22:51 -0700, Don Bowey wrote:

On 10/18/07 10:06 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
wrote:

[snip]

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

Did you purchase them or win them in an honorable war? We got some of
ours from a Republican God.


Why is Don Bowey so insecure ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

A strange question from someone who reacts so violently when his country
or his politics are critisised.

Jim

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:50:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

snip bizarre nonsense

---
Ostrich tactics.
---

Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

Interestingly, England _herself_ was tyrannical for many hundreds of
years, (even recently, considering the Falklands incident) so it
seems you're trying to use the same brush you tarred yourselves with
to tar us!

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?


--
JF

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:39:58 -0500, flipper
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:11:23 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:48:47 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

---
Nice catch! :-)


--
JF

JimW52 wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

Did you purchase them or win them in an honorable war? We got some of
ours from a Republican God.


Why is Don Bowey so insecure ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

A strange question from someone who reacts so violently when his country
or his politics are critisised.

Jim

I reckon Jim T has finally totally lost it. It's one thing to call people he
doesn't agree with weenies, but to dismiss them as traitors illustrates total
mental confusion.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:50:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

snip bizarre nonsense

---
Ostrich tactics.
---

What ? You did the snipping !


Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

Interestingly, England _herself_ was tyrannical for many hundreds of
years, (even recently, considering the Falklands incident) so it
seems you're trying to use the same brush you tarred yourselves with
to tar us!

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.

What ? They WANT to be British. Like the Gibraltarians too. They are 'devoutly'
British.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:06:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:06:57 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falklands is and was then British. It was the Argentinians who were
interfering in
OUR affairs.

The Falklands were, no doubt, errant islands of the North Sea that
broke loose, wandered across the Atlantic, and bumped up against South
America.

If geographic location is your criterion, then I look forward to the USA
ceasing to have any claim on Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands, the
Marianas and miscellaneous other uninhabited Pacific islands.


Tsk. Tsk,

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

---
Yours because you left a plaque behind when you deserted them
saying, in effect, "We're leaving, but these are still ours in case
we ever decide to come back."?

Behind that kind of logic, our flag on the moon means it belongs to
the US.

The Falklands have never been deserted.

---
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands


"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the upcoming
American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose
to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774.[9][10]
Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting
her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled
from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de
la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a
plaque asserting her claims."
---

You need to get an education. A REAL education not a stupid warped nationalistic
American one.

---
Well, not being consumed by hate I can at least report _facts_ I
find using Wikipedia.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:08:59 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Invading Iraq was 'self defence' ???

Bwahahahahahhahahaa

As I've pointed out before, leave it to the left to defend a WMD
obsessed mass murdering dictator who spent 10 years violating over
13 mandatory U.N. chapter 7 resolutions and the terms of cease fire
for the second of two regional wars he started in addition to his
terrorist activities.

Yes, it was defense.

********.

Those sharing your opinion lost the free and open debate on the
matter.

********.

The vote was taken and duly recorded.


The USA doesn't count. You're governed by IDIOTS. Top flight Grade One ignorant
****wits.


Ouuuu.. I just love it when you talk dirty, BITCH!..

Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

You are out gunned and out manned!

I'm well aware how Americans rely on GUNS to get their way.

---
How'd you get the Falklands back, diplomatically?


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:12:22 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.
---

I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be receptive to
any new ideas.

---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:16:43 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

And it's quite clear that 'appeasement' is totally misunderstood anyway.

---
Don't be absurd.

From:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appease

3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting
concessions, often at the expense of principle.
---

I'd like to
know what you suppose Britain could have actually done of any significance over
Czechoslavakia for example.

---
The point wasn't that Britain could have done anything, it was that
Britain tried to make a deal with Hitler to allow Britain to remain
English and untouched by the ravages of war while not interfering
with Hitler's making the rest of Europe German by the use of force.
---

Compare with Darfur today for example.

---
I couldn't find anything about appeasement, but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


"The Mahdist state collapsed under the onslaught of the British
force led by Herbert Kitchener, who established an Anglo-Egyptian
co-dominium to rule Sudan. The British allowed Darfur de jure
autonomy until 1916 when they invaded and incorporated the region
into Sudan.[20] Within Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the bulk of resources
were devoted toward Khartoum and Blue Nile Province, leaving the
rest of the country relatively undeveloped."

Sure seems to lend credence to the proposition that no matter where
you go, violence isn't far behind.

And to what end? Just to fill your coffers.


--
JF

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:37:48 -0700, "Dan Coby"
wrote:


Outrageous claims by any group usually serve very little positive purpose
in any reasonable discussion. Outrageous counter claims also do not
add to the discussion. (Two wrongs do not make a right.)

---
However, two wrongs often make the left.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:38:29 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:50:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

snip bizarre nonsense

---
Ostrich tactics.
---

What ? You did the snipping !


Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

Interestingly, England _herself_ was tyrannical for many hundreds of
years, (even recently, considering the Falklands incident) so it
seems you're trying to use the same brush you tarred yourselves with
to tar us!

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.

What ? They WANT to be British.

---
Which is better, in their eyes, than being Argentine.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:39:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?

---
Better yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...%29_Act_198 3


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:39:40 +0100, the renowned Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?

Graham

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

John Fields wrote:

flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

---
Nice catch! :-)

What catch ?

The pair of you are living in la-la land.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:06:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:06:57 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falklands is and was then British. It was the Argentinians who were
interfering in
OUR affairs.

The Falklands were, no doubt, errant islands of the North Sea that
broke loose, wandered across the Atlantic, and bumped up against South
America.

If geographic location is your criterion, then I look forward to the USA
ceasing to have any claim on Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands, the
Marianas and miscellaneous other uninhabited Pacific islands.


Tsk. Tsk,

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

---
Yours because you left a plaque behind when you deserted them
saying, in effect, "We're leaving, but these are still ours in case
we ever decide to come back."?

Behind that kind of logic, our flag on the moon means it belongs to
the US.

The Falklands have never been deserted.

---
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the upcoming
American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose
to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774.[9][10]
Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting
her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled
from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de
la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a
plaque asserting her claims."
---

You need to get an education. A REAL education not a stupid warped nationalistic
American one.

---
Well, not being consumed by hate I can at least report _facts_ I
find using Wikipedia.

Oh FFS - we're talking about recent history here not centuries ago.

****WIT.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:

You are out gunned and out manned!

I'm well aware how Americans rely on GUNS to get their way.

---
How'd you get the Falklands back, diplomatically?

As if diplomacy would mean anything to an AMERICAN IDIOT.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

You mean Operation Sea Lion you IGNORANT **** ?

Hitler reckoned he could invade Britain using converted Dutch barges designed for the Rhine
navigation on the North Sea.

Bwaahahahahahaa

They wouldn't have stood a chance.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.

What ? They WANT to be British.

---
Which is better, in their eyes, than being Argentine.

Damn right it is. Better than being 'Mercun too.

Graham

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:11:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

Graham

Yes, that's exactly what it says.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:02:08 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:06:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:06:57 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falklands is and was then British. It was the Argentinians who were
interfering in
OUR affairs.

The Falklands were, no doubt, errant islands of the North Sea that
broke loose, wandered across the Atlantic, and bumped up against South
America.

If geographic location is your criterion, then I look forward to the USA
ceasing to have any claim on Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin
Islands, the
Marianas and miscellaneous other uninhabited Pacific islands.


Tsk. Tsk,

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

---
Yours because you left a plaque behind when you deserted them
saying, in effect, "We're leaving, but these are still ours in case
we ever decide to come back."?

Behind that kind of logic, our flag on the moon means it belongs to
the US.

The Falklands have never been deserted.

---
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the upcoming
American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose
to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774.[9][10]
Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting
her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled
from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de
la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a
plaque asserting her claims."
---

You need to get an education. A REAL education not a stupid warped nationalistic
American one.

---
Well, not being consumed by hate I can at least report _facts_ I
find using Wikipedia.

Oh FFS - we're talking about recent history here not centuries ago.

---
Then why did you write: "The Falklands have never been deserted."
---

****WIT Graham


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:04:01 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:

You are out gunned and out manned!

I'm well aware how Americans rely on GUNS to get their way.

---
How'd you get the Falklands back, diplomatically?

As if diplomacy would mean anything to an AMERICAN IDIOT.

---
We always try diplomacy as a first step, so in spite of your
continuous braying to the contrary, you really know very little
about us, it would appear.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:07:34 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

You mean Operation Sea Lion you IGNORANT **** ?

---
No.
---

Hitler reckoned he could invade Britain using converted Dutch barges designed for the Rhine
navigation on the North Sea.

Bwaahahahahahaa

They wouldn't have stood a chance.

---
As much as you'd like to change the subject and derail the
discussion, whether they would or would not have isn't what's being
discussed.

What is being discussed is appeasement, which is what allowed Hitler
to prepare for war, essentially unopposed, by Britain and France.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:09:08 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.

What ? They WANT to be British.

---
Which is better, in their eyes, than being Argentine.

Damn right it is. Better than being 'Mercun too.

---
Well, at least you have _something_ you can believe in.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:11:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym


--
JF

Eeyore wrote:

WTF is 'mother england' ?


The withered, ugly old whore of a country you preach your hatred of
everyone else from. Just remember, not all "MF"s are tractors.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 10/19/07 4:05 AM, in article ,
"John Fields" wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:12:22 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about
the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech,
shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government
leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I
suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.


Things I read many years ago indicated Hitler felt, for some unclear reason,
a kinship with or otherwise a desire to NOT attack Britain. Indications
were that he spent some time there in his youth. If I ever knew, I have
forgotten, exactly what reversed his intentions to not take the battle to
them.


---

I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be
receptive to
any new ideas.

---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:44:49 GMT, JimW52 wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:26:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:22:51 -0700, Don Bowey wrote:

On 10/18/07 10:06 AM, in article , "Eeyore"
wrote:

[snip]

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

Did you purchase them or win them in an honorable war? We got some of
ours from a Republican God.


Why is Don Bowey so insecure ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

A strange question from someone who reacts so violently when his country
or his politics are critisised.

Jim


Uhhh? Did you read what you wrote?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On 10/19/07 4:35 AM, in article ,
"John Fields" wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:16:43 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care
about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech,
shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government
leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

And it's quite clear that 'appeasement' is totally misunderstood anyway.

---
Don't be absurd.

From:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appease

3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting
concessions, often at the expense of principle.
---

I suppose I could use that paragraph to explain the current Turkey
situation:

The US is in an appeasing mode, turning a blind eye toward Turkey
with regard to their denying free speech to their people, while
disregarding its own stated belief that free speech is a basic,
inalienable right of people in a free society.

What is a "fair" price for a load of principle?

I'd like to
know what you suppose Britain could have actually done of any significance
over
Czechoslavakia for example.

---
The point wasn't that Britain could have done anything, it was that
Britain tried to make a deal with Hitler to allow Britain to remain
English and untouched by the ravages of war while not interfering
with Hitler's making the rest of Europe German by the use of force.
---

Compare with Darfur today for example.

---
I couldn't find anything about appeasement, but from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


"The Mahdist state collapsed under the onslaught of the British
force led by Herbert Kitchener, who established an Anglo-Egyptian
co-dominium to rule Sudan. The British allowed Darfur de jure
autonomy until 1916 when they invaded and incorporated the region
into Sudan.[20] Within Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the bulk of resources
were devoted toward Khartoum and Blue Nile Province, leaving the
rest of the country relatively undeveloped."

Sure seems to lend credence to the proposition that no matter where
you go, violence isn't far behind.

And to what end? Just to fill your coffers.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:07:54 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:11:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._and_Hong_Kong

"British Nationals (Overseas) are Commonwealth citizens so they enjoy
most civic rights in the United Kingdom. They are also eligible for a
free-of-charge Residence Permit if they wish to study in the UK [1].
But BN(O)s are not full British citizens or European citizens and they
do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom."

Not much of a citizenship if you are not allowed to live permanently
in the country...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Don Bowey wrote:

"John Fields" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I
suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

Things I read many years ago indicated Hitler felt, for some unclear reason,
a kinship with or otherwise a desire to NOT attack Britain. Indications
were that he spent some time there in his youth. If I ever knew, I have
forgotten, exactly what reversed his intentions to not take the battle to
them.

I do believe it's on record that he offered a truce.

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

Graham

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._and_Hong_Kong

"British Nationals (Overseas) are Commonwealth citizens so they enjoy
most civic rights in the United Kingdom. They are also eligible for a
free-of-charge Residence Permit if they wish to study in the UK [1].
But BN(O)s are not full British citizens or European citizens and they
do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom."

Not much of a citizenship if you are not allowed to live permanently
in the country...

The distinction was introduced in view of ever growing immigration numbers. There's a
limit to this country's ability to support a large population. It's getting crazy again
with EU immigration, notably from Poland and other East European countries.


Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:09:25 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:07:54 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:11:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._and_Hong_Kong

"British Nationals (Overseas) are Commonwealth citizens so they enjoy
most civic rights in the United Kingdom. They are also eligible for a
free-of-charge Residence Permit if they wish to study in the UK [1].
But BN(O)s are not full British citizens or European citizens and they
do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom."

Not much of a citizenship if you are not allowed to live permanently
in the country...

---
Agreed.


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:05:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

---
He's not obfuscating, he's trying to make things clearer, and he's
right.

You, on the other hand, do whatever you can to try to muddy the
water when you've been skewered and have no out.


--
JF

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

You're the one who's intentionally obfuscating and trying to divert
the obvious meaning.

LIAR.

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:09:06 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
the renowned Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?


http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kimage/data_english.gif

Note the "Overseas" bit.

But not "second class".

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._and_Hong_Kong

"British Nationals (Overseas) are Commonwealth citizens so they enjoy
most civic rights in the United Kingdom. They are also eligible for a
free-of-charge Residence Permit if they wish to study in the UK [1].
But BN(O)s are not full British citizens or European citizens and they
do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom."

Not much of a citizenship if you are not allowed to live permanently
in the country...

The distinction was introduced in view of ever growing immigration numbers. There's a
limit to this country's ability to support a large population. It's getting crazy again
with EU immigration, notably from Poland and other East European countries.


Graham

Sure, and if things had turned out ugly (say, a replay of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution) and HK was sacked) it would have been
quite inconvenient to have all those foreigners looking for refuge..
even of only 10% of them (maybe 500K) had been able to leave. A
shameful episode, IMHO.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"flipper" wrote in message ...

snip

Too many groups (of both the left and right) want to use the power of
their government to enforce their own version of history. The founders
of this country believed (and I strongly agree) that freedom of speech
is a critical counter balance to the power of government.

As I said in the portions you snipped out, tell it to France and
Switzerland, then, because they "did" make a particular interpretation
of history and speech 'illegal'.

As I also said in portions that I snipped, I do not agree with the actions
of the EU or Switzerland with regard to requiring the use of the word
'genocide'. I do support actions which encourage the Turkish government
to stop prosecuting its citizens under Article 301.

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

You're the one who's intentionally obfuscating and trying to divert
the obvious meaning.

LIAR.

The readily observable evidence proves otherwise.

The readily observable evidence is that you like to redefine the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Graham