Brits in Iraq.............

[red indian]

.....I just listened to Bill Orielly admit on his show that he had no idea how the Brits were running their part of the show in Iraq.

I would appear that finally the U.S. is starting to realise that they may have something to learn from the Brits. Having slowly started to realise that they may just possibly have got a few things wrong over the last few months in iraq. Good lord!! is that possible??? Americans get something wrong?? blimey!!!

I am truely staggered that the U.S. have not kept a closer eye on how the Brits are doing in the south of iraq. It betrays a level of contempt on the part of the U.S. government and the U.S. press towards the efforts being made by their allies.

The British committment in Iraq in terms of the proportion of forces deployed is far in exess of the U.S. We are also doing a much better job. This is finally starting to be recognised by the U.S.

Sadly it could well be a case of "to little too late" as the U.S. is now reported to be seeking British support in the north of the country.

I could go in to the reasons why we are so much better equiped to fight the kind of war now being faced in Iraq but I may make myself even more unpopular on this site.

What I can say about this issue is........"I told you so"

[The Sean Man]

Speaking for most of us damn yankees, out of all the excellent news sources in the world, you choose....Bill O'Reilly?!? What...Entertainment Tonight on too late for you?:rolleyes:

The Sean Man

[theshire]

Unlike most people in the UK/US, it seems, I was all for the Iraq war (military action, rather). I still am. But I wish we'd have been allowed to run it all instead. To put it in a way which is least offensive while also an accurate representation of the TRUTH: the Americans are crap.

[MrMacphisto]

Well, we still saved your asses in WWII. Anyway, yeah, we're sucking at this nation-building thing; I don't know what the Brits are doing either though.

[red indian]

.....here we go again. Another American who thinks he "saved our asses" in world war two. Its at this point that I ask for an explanation as to how it was you "saved our asses", this is usually followed by the American concerned blathering on about D Day, Hitler and the invasion of the European Continent, which in turn is followed by me pointing out that the U.K. successfully fought off an attempted invasion by Germany WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM THE U.S. THANKYOU VERY MUCH.

Dear oh dear......dont know why I bother sometimes.

[MrMacphisto]

Hey, Red... Churchill was undeniably a great leader, and yeah, you guys kept the Germans from invading your isles, but guess what? They still bombed the shit out of you guys. We saved your asses by providing the military might to knock the Nazies back to Germany. We would've accomplished this sooner, but you have to remember that we were fighting the Japanese at the same time.

All jesting aside though, we still needed the help of the Allies, no doubt. Without Russia fighting the Nazies in the East and without our British (and other European) friends fighting them in the West, I don't know if we would have succeeded in defeating the Nazies. Now, if we weren't also fighting Japan... hmmmm.... ;)

[HisDivineShadow]

Originally posted by theshire
TRUTH: the Americans are crap.

NoNoNoNoNO! Our ADMINISTRATION is crap.:D And is it really necessary to bring up that WWII thing? Who cares who saved who? If we had been in Europe's position, they would have done the same. Hitler and the Axis simply had to be stopped, they were a danger to the entire world. Europe owes no great debt to us because we did what was right and stopped the Axis. They are not obligated to support something they believe is unjust simply because we aided them, DESPITE the fact that our aid likely turned the tide, although the Russians played an equal, if not greater role in Germany's defeat.



*Sigh* This is not HDS territory.....time to fade back out of serious conversation.

[Cosmo_ac]

Christ! What about the Canadians? I swear, for the recognition we get from being in both wars, we might as well have not even bothered. :p

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow

*Sigh* This is not HDS territory.....time to fade back out of serious conversation. [/B] Red started it:couch:





The Sean Man

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow
Europe owes no great debt to us because we did what was right and stopped the Axis.

You totally forget about the Soviets. Hitler sent 4 mil men in there in 1941, and there'd be no way you guys could've beaten such a force on ur own...

[HisDivineShadow]

Did you read the rest of my post, ST?:rolleyes: ;)

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow
Did you read the rest of my post, ST?:rolleyes: ;)

oh dear, I really need to quit drinkin :p

but it still applies to alot of americans :p

[BOFH666]

To be fair the US forces do have a more.... complicated job on their hands in the north than the UK forces in the south, look at Falluja for proof of that.

BUT, yeah I've got to agree with ya on this one Red, when it comes to the book of what NOT to do in this sort of situation the UK's been there, done that, learnt from often bloody experience. If the US hadn't had quite such a, well forgive me for saying so but, gung ho attitude when trouble did occur maybe they'd be in a much better position now in terms of popularity with the Iraqi people.

Just to give an idea of what I'm referring to above about a gung-ho attitude, this is from an article published on the BBC web site last Friday, 23rd April:


The head of mission of a European humanitarian agency with staff in Falluja told BBC News Online that, according to his staff, two of their ambulances had been shot at.

"By who? The probability is by US snipers," he said.

Asked whether these were warning or attacking shots, he said: "One was shot two or three times - a sniper does not shoot an ambulance three times by mistake."

British aid worker Jo Wilding said an ambulance she was in, with flashing lights, siren blaring and "ambulance" written on it in English, was hit as it drove to collect a woman in premature labour.

Ms Wilding is sure the shots came from American troops.

"You can tell the shape of US marine from a mujahideen - even if you can only see a silhouette, the helmet and flak jacket are quite distinctive. Also, we were in a US-controlled part of town," she told BBC News Online.

Iraqi doctor Salam al-Obaidi, a member of the Doctors for Iraq humanitarian society, worked in Falluja for six days during the fighting.

Speaking to BBC News Online, he described seeing colleagues blown up in an ambulance - also clearly marked - travelling in front of him as his team tried to enter a US-controlled area.

"I saw the ambulance disappear - not all of it, but the front of it, the side where the driver and paramedic were," he said.

He said he and two more colleagues were injured in a second explosion. He still does not know the fate of the two people in the first ambulance.

In a separate incident, Dr Obaidi said, a driver and paramedic in an ambulance were shot in a US-controlled area - one in the chest, the other in the eyes.

The injured civilians inside the ambulance bled to death during the next two days as warning shots were fired when the team tried - four times - to return to collect the ambulance, he said.

Three days into the siege, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, denied that troops were firing on ambulances.

"If we're shooting vehicles, it's because those vehicles have shot at us," he said.

US officials have said that on one occasion, an insurgent gunman was seen fleeing in an ambulance, and that weapons have been found in an aid convoy west of the city.

Coalition military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmit said that there have been "a lot of people running around the city with blankets on their vehicles asserting that they are ambulances".

There was concern that these could have been loaded with explosives, he said.



As it is, Falluja's disintegrating (BBC web site reports a second night of heavy fighting with US tanks and aircraft firing on the city, though US commanders are saying it's not an assault but a defensive action), a not-inconsiderable number of Shia Muslims are already openly hostile and if the rest go then that's pretty much game over. There have been far too many civilian deaths as a result of mistaken identity or anxious troops. Please don't think I'm criticising the forces deployed there, I can't even begin to imagine what they must be going through right now. It just seems to me that the US forces are trained more towards aggressor rather than peace-keeping roles.

The sad fact is though, even if the US does request British help, I doubt we're in a position to give it them. We just don't have sufficient troops available to make any real difference and there certainly isn't enough time between now and the supposed handover date on June 30th to get any additional training in place for existing US forces.

Unfortunately of course, it's easy to say all this with the benefit of hindsight. What I really can't understand is that the vast majority of what's happened I discussed with friends of mine almost two YEARS ago when someone brought up the subject (right about the time my mate joined the TA). And this wasn't by any means an isolated conversation, from personal experience I talked to maybe twenty or thirty people about this from all walks of life before the hunt for WMD began and they all said much the same thing, that the 'war' would be brief and a good media grabber, the real trick would come afterwards and they'd seen NOTHING to convince them that it could be done as easily as the powers that be were saying it could be.

Right now though, the priority is simple enough: Work out some way to stem the violence growing in Iraq WITHOUT creating an entire nation of people with good reason to hate the 'west' (I don't really like the term but it'll do for now). For that to happen... well, I don't have the answer to that, I wish to god I did. My best guess is that America needs to drop any self-interest in this matter, forget the idea of having a US-sympathetic government in place or any financial gain and let the Iraqi people decide what government they want. The fact is, the only reason Iraq worked at all was it WAS a dictatorship, the ONLY chance they have of making a democracy work is for it to be a free democracy, run by Iraqi's for Iraqi's and with a fair, unbiased playing field.

Once that's done, and for that matter, WHILE that's being done, let us not forget that there are still some very hard questions that need answering and hopefully people won't be taken in by the revisionist history that has been put in place to cover the collective backsides of those who put the lives of not only everyone in the 'coalition of the willing' on the line but the lives of the Iraqi people as well.

And while we're on the subject of the US paying attention to other nations... don't you think it's about time there was a formal apology to France for the RIDICULOUS name-calling and accusations that went on when they voted (rightly as it turned out) against invading? And don't give me any of that "they only said that and threatened to veto for their own interests" rubbish either, as the US did PRECISLY that about a month ago on a resolution to condemn the assassination of Sheikh Yassin by Israel. Sorry, a little off topic I know, but I'm getting sick and tired of the double standard that's being used and the refusal to see the definition of 'terrorist' as one that can be applied to ANYONE regardless of which side they're on. One mans freedom fighter and all that...

[red indian]

....I have to explain to ignorant Americans that the U.S. decision to get involved in the European theatre of war in WW2 was a long way short of altruistic, certainly in terms of the U.K.

Sorry to bore you folks, but it has to said that we in the U.K. are STILL paying you back for your assistance during WW2. Yes its true, right here and now, in 2004, we are STILL paying off our debt to the U.S. under the terms of "lend lease". So lets just cut the crap shall we? about how you "saved our asses"?

You saved a lot of asses in WW2, but not many in the U.K.

[theshire]

You never 'saved our asses'. It's a common misconception, like the fact that the US won the war single-handedly (American POV). You joined late, for God's sake! It wasn't until you got bombed at Pearl Harbour that you did any ass-saving of any kind. Up until then, you weren't interested in the wars of Europe - until it affected you.

[Neutron]

Start up with the Russians saved your ass. Although it's doubtful you would have "lost" WW2 without that you certainly wouldn't have won.

Also, without US Intervention you'd have lost the Battle Of The Atlantic. Lets remember it was us who escorted Brit convoys prior to entering the war. AS for Lend Lease, you ought to be glad for it, Roosevelt was under no obligation to do that AND he most likely violated the Constitution and US Law when he agreed to Lend Lease. Saying we weren't interested is incorrdct, we supplied Britain with goods, escorted those same goods, sold you warships, AND lost US Warships prior to entering the war. US DEstroyers provided direction to U boats for UK Bombers from Iceland. Our Coast Guard Cutter Modoc shadowed the Bismarck for you, and it was a US PBY Seaplane (under loan) with an American Observer who found her. Post war it was discovered the USS Texas would have opened fire upon the Bismarck had she seen her in the mist. I'd call that plenty of support.

Without US Intervention you wouldn't have had

Mass Produced Destroyer Escorts
The Escort Carrier,
Mass produced AND refined radar and sonar
High performance fighters post late 1942 for long range bombing mission escort. .
The Dive Bomber
The long range 4 engine bomber (And PLEASE don't tell me the Lancasters and Wellingtons were anything but if so, why did the Brits BEG for B 24 Liberators!!)
The Norden Bombsite
The transports to invade the Continent, Italy, and North Africa
Money
FOOD!!!!

Without US Intervention your industry would have collapsed. There would not have been around the clock bombing. The modern German U Boat would have been in service early 1943 at the latest ALONG with the first Jet fighters. You would have been economically strangled as you would have been in WW1. All that's pretty good considering we did not consider it our war.

You ought to thank the Germans for being stupid enough to support an ally they didn't trust (Japan) by declaring war on us. And the Brits could have done themselves a BIG favor by shooting Churchill and Monty, sacking Pound sooner (although I can see the reasons why they kept Pound) And turning the war over to AlanBrooke.

No we did not win WW2 by ourselves, but we COULD have. We were the only country in the world to come out of the war Economically stronger than when we entered AND that meant everything. US Industry was putting out more goods than the rest of the world as a whole and we were only tapping our potential. Had the war gone into 1946 our Navy and Airforce would have been larger than the rest of the worlds combined, and our Army was only exceeded by the Russians. Since the Russians had lost the cream of their youth to German genocide and on the Eastern Front our Army was qualitively better, certainly it was better organized and self sufficient. Let us also remember the ONLY reason the US did not over run Germany and Czechoslovakia was due to Politics and the fact the US was not willing to sacfrice American soldiers for political reasons, those being to take territory simply to keep it from the Russians.


AS for their performance in Southern Iraq... I thank the Brits, but everyone knew going in it was a secondary theater without the hard core resistance that was expected in the North. SAying that, they have done a good job.

Tron

[qjakal]

You're right as always, you boys are indeed better at policing a nation you've subjugated...lol..wonder why?

As for the ever popular WW2 round of debate, all I know is that somewhere in the alternate afterlife Hitler is kicking the crap outta every Japanese military man he can find...



:zzzzz: Q

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Well, we still saved your asses in WWII. Anyway, yeah, we're sucking at this nation-building thing; I don't know what the Brits are doing either though.

:D Hey, if you "saved our asses" in WWII then please get on your hands and kness to thank the French (and for that matter the Spanish) for winning you the War of Independence :D

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Let us also remember the ONLY reason the US did not over run Germany and Czechoslovakia was due to Politics and the fact the US was not willing to sacfrice American soldiers for political reasons

There's a lesson in there somewhere....

[MrMacphisto]

Touche, my friend... History is like that, eh? I can't speak, read, or write French, but there are certain things about France that I respect. For one thing, they've got balls when it comes to speaking out against the U.S. They weren't exactly against the Iraq War for moral reasons, but at least they had the gall to challenge us. In a weird way, France is a little bit like America: they like to do things their own way, regardless of the consequences. Sometimes, that's a stupid tendency, but other times, it is a good thing. However, they do have that surrendering problem; France is hardly the same nation it was when Napoleon led them. Then again, that's probably a good thing as well....

[The Sean Man]

So, what does this all mean?

1) Americans are arrogant, dumb bullies.

2) The french are pompous and stubborn.

3) The British whine and complain.

Any other countries want to check in with their two cents worth?

The Sean Man

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
So, what does this all mean?

1) Americans are arrogant, dumb bullies.

2) The french are pompous and stubborn.

3) The British whine and complain.

Any other countries want to check in with their two cents worth?

The Sean Man

4) We've all got WAY too much time on our hands? :D

[Neutron]

They've done an excellent job in standing by the US throughout the 20th Century, in many cases they've done so when they had no real material interest. It's been likewise for us. Also remember at one time they were standing alone in Europe. Granted it wasn't as dismal as they like to maintain... Also, the French are not a cowardly people. If it weren't for French bravery fighting a vicious rear action at Dunkirk the majority of the British army would have been destroyed on the Continent. The French agreed not to surrender until Brits were safe, and they held their end up.
Also, WW1 was at least brought to a standstill with the blood of about a few million Frenchmen. My problem with them isn't that they won't fight, it's how they tend to tell others they shouldn't fight either.

Also, the US was correct in not fighting WW2 purely for political sake. Had the Brits held up THEIR end of the deal the US wouldn't have had to do so. They double dealt Poland and the Czechs throughout the war. Had Churchill spent more time actually dealing with reality, rather than trying to maintain an empire and preserve a world influence that was already gone, much of Eastern Europe would have remained free.

OH and had the US mixed it up with the Soviets in late 45 and early 46. We would have won. Stalin knew this and was happy as hell we stopped.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Touche, my friend... History is like that, eh? I can't speak, read, or write French, but there are certain things about France that I respect. For one thing, they've got balls when it comes to speaking out against the U.S. They weren't exactly against the Iraq War for moral reasons, but at least they had the gall to challenge us. In a weird way, France is a little bit like America: they like to do things their own way, regardless of the consequences. Sometimes, that's a stupid tendency, but other times, it is a good thing. However, they do have that surrendering problem; France is hardly the same nation it was when Napoleon led them. Then again, that's probably a good thing as well....

:wow: :yowzer:

I have but one thing to say:

MrMacphisto for President! :D

Hey, 'tis a better attitude than any of the current bunch of candidates if nothing else ;)

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
They've done an excellent job in standing by the US throughout the 20th Century, in many cases they've done so when they had no real material interest. It's been likewise for us. Also remember at one time they were standing alone in Europe. Granted it wasn't as dismal as they like to maintain... Also, the French are not a cowardly people. If it weren't for French bravery fighting a vicious rear action at Dunkirk the majority of the British army would have been destroyed on the Continent. The French agreed not to surrender until Brits were safe, and they held their end up.
Also, WW1 was at least brought to a standstill with the blood of about a few million Frenchmen. My problem with them isn't that they won't fight, it's how they tend to tell others they shouldn't fight either.


So you've defended the Brits and the French... but no arguments to point 1 on that list? ;)

One thing though... you have a problem with the French putting forward their view that, in a given situation it's not right to fight, that's fair enough. But how can you then defend the US from doing exactly the same thing from the other side of the argument? Double standards at work, surely? After all what are the French doing differently other than being on the opposing side of an issue? Take Iraq for example (now here's a switch, me trying to drag a conversation ON topic :D), and this is obviously a very simplistic view for the sake of this example:

USA: Iraq still has WMD, invade now!
France: We don't know that, there's no evidence, let's give the weapons inspectors more time, wait to invade!

Same argument, different sides, and in this case AND ON THAT ISSUE (I really hope that revisionist history doesn't take place on this and it ends up remembered as being done primarily to free Iraq. That was NEVER put in front of the UN as a primary reason to invade and it'd be a shame (me being polite) for this to be forgotten) it was the French that were the voice of reason...

[asutickler]

What the USA says: Iraq still has WMD, invade now!

What France says: We don't know that, there's no evidence, let's give the weapons inspectors more time, wait to invade!

What the USA means: Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the stability of the most strategically significant region in the world. He has demonstrated this by attacking his neighbors, most recently in 1991. Saddam's non-compliance with UN-mandated inspections gives us an excuse to take him out. Let's do it.

What France means: Saddam Hussein is no Boy Scout, but he hasn't attacked anyone in more than a decade. The UN-mandated inspections may work if additional pressure is applied and more time is given. As we are currently able to purchase oil at rock-bottom prices under the UN's "Oil for Food" program, it is in our nation's best economic interest to leave Saddam in place and continue the current UN sanctions and oil sales programs.

[red indian]

.......so in broad terms Tronny agrees with me. The U.S. involvement in WW2 as far as the U.K. was concerned, was indeed about buying, selling and general horse trading. It had precious little to do with U.S. compassion for the U.K. They made a deal for a pound of flesh and they got it.

Never forget that the U.S. were quite happy to see the U.K. devoured by Hitler along with France and Poland. It was only after it became clear that we had reppelled the Germans via the Battle of Britain that atitudes began to change in the U.S.

The Battle of Britain seems to cause Tronny a lot of anxiety for some reason. He seems to have trouble with the fact it was accomplished without U.S. help. It seems to be for the same reason Americans cant cope with Lennox Lewis being the undisputed world heavy weight champion.

I do not in any way mean to play down the massive contribution made by the U.S. towards the successfull conclusion of WW2, that is beyond dispute, only a fool would try to argue otherwise. That is not my point. My point is that the majority of Americans seem to have this idea that they "saved your assess in WW2" but when it comes down to examining the facts, what we find is not some Disney Fairy Tale story of saving the free world, but instead, a hard nosed business deal, ruthlessly persued by a major trading rival to the extent that they were eliminated from their postion as a major world power.

I have no complaints about that in terms of history, Churcill made the decision to throw it all away for the sake of Europe,s freedom. U.S. were never called upon to make such a decision. They did "very nicely thankyou" out of WW2.

Tronnyies stuff about the French in WW2 is bollocks, he fails to mention the fact that the main reason Dunkirk happened was the fact that the French decided to fuck off home along with the Belgians leaving the Brits in a long salient.He also fails to mention how many French troops were evacuated to the U.K. during Dunkirk. So his insinuation that the U.K. left the French in the lurch is as untrue as it is distastefull.

He also fails to mention the large body of U.K. forces who remained in France after dunkirk........I could go on but, lets just cut it short by mentioning the fact the Tronny once tried to persuade me that the U.S. invented the Harrier Jump Jet!!!.......enough said.

[red indian]

.....try this for size. "The Audit of War" by Correlli Barnet. Its got enough anti Brit ammo in it to keep you going for years!!! and its written by a Brit. Its a scathing and merciless analysis of the decline of Britain before, during,and after WW2.

[Marauder]

All this talk about WWII is starting to give me an ulcer FROM SHEER REGRET. We had you Brits by the balls! If it weren't for the damn Yanks who are all disfigured from birth because obviously they don't have ten toes and ten fingers or else they'd already have the metric system coming to your aid after we bombed you happily while they sat on their fat asses watching TV you'd be speaking german now, but at least you'd be driving on the right side of the road and all be into scatplay instead of spanking and throwing babies into ovens like us and the french eat frogs when they're not busy capitulating to them or running away from berserk baguette and the africans all eat watermelons and back in the stone age my tribe defeated your tribe and saved his tribe and wiped out the Neanderthals and also my amoebae forebears were much bigger than yours and what the hell is the point of delving into history when the thread is about whether the UK or the US are better at illegal occupation?

[Neutron]

Churchill wanted the Empire and to stop Germanies ability to impede his empire. No more, no less.

As for the Battle Of Britain... More planes took part and were lost in ONE day at Leyte Gulf and the Marianas than took place in the Battle Of Britain. Had Hitler not decided to "settle things in the East" he'd have at the minimum reached a stalemate with England. After the debacle at Norway he didn't have the Naval strength to ever invade her.

No matter, by the end of 1946 the US would have won the whole thing on her own.

Tron

[Lazarus]

Very well spoken, Tron.

I wholeheartedly agree with your view, and would type more, but my Carpal Tunnel (SP) has been acting up very badly lately, so I will stop with that.

Wil

[MrMacphisto]

Thanks for the words of support, BOFH666.... :D

Anyway, this shouldn't be about "my country is better than yours!" We each have our strengths and weaknesses....

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by asutickler
What the USA means: Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the stability of the most strategically significant region in the world. He has demonstrated this by attacking his neighbors, most recently in 1991. Saddam's non-compliance with UN-mandated inspections gives us an excuse to take him out. Let's do it.

What France means: Saddam Hussein is no Boy Scout, but he hasn't attacked anyone in more than a decade. The UN-mandated inspections may work if additional pressure is applied and more time is given. As we are currently able to purchase oil at rock-bottom prices under the UN's "Oil for Food" program, it is in our nation's best economic interest to leave Saddam in place and continue the current UN sanctions and oil sales programs.

Slight problem with that, Saddam wasn't an imminent threat to the stability of the region. He simply didn't have the weapons or manpower to do much after the first gulf war. Not to mention the fact he KNEW any agressive moves out of Iraq would have him removed from power pretty much immediately by the west. As for attacking Iran and Kuwait... let's say that the US shares a certain amount of responsibility for events in the Iran/Iraq war and remember that the US KNEW that Saddam was planning to invade Kuwait and basically gave him the go-ahead to do so by not responding to him. Israel / Palastine is a far bigger imminent threat to the stability of the region imho.

On the economic front... are you seriously trying to suggest that the US had NO economic interests in invading Iraq, the contracts for reconstruction for example? Or how about political reasons, just look at how big a part Iraq is playing in this election campaign already and imagine what would have happened if things had gone as the US predicted...

[red indian]

......thats probably the weakest post Tronny has ever produced!!!

If Churchill wanted to keep the empire he would have stopped fighting after the BoB, when we still had plenty of chips on the table, a Victorious Airforce, the worlds biggest navy, and no crippling debt to the U.S.A.

Also anyone who has read "Mien Campf" would know that Hitlers over arching strategy was to conquer the western european continent( "liebensraum") and use the British navy and surrounding empire as a natural partner to dominate the globe. So quite clearly he would have been very pleased if Britain had decided to sue for peace post BoB.

Had Churchill done this,the empire would have survived. In terms of hard nosed reality, Hitler quite rightly expected Churchill to see sense, but he choose to fight on for the sake of freedom and democracy in europe,a decision he knew would mean the end of Britain as a world power.

The U.S.A. were never called on to make such a sacrifice, and in fact had a great deal to gain in seeing the end of the British empire one way or the other.


I am as always pleased to see that Tronny agrees with me once again, Hitler would indeed have "reached a stalemate with Britain" had he not turned to the east. I wonder what made him do that???....(dont know why I bother sometimes!)

Tronnies reference to a "numbers game" regarding how big or small a battle may have been, is totally irrelevant, I make no boast in any of my posts about how big or small the BoB was in relation to other air Battles.Its the result of the Battle and its effects on strategey that matter (why do I have to tell YOU this Tronny???)


Lastly I have to take issue with those in this thread who accuse me of taking part in some kind of competition regarding national superiority. I am not doing any such thing, I was responding to a rather cheap, ill informed statement regarding the U.S. "saving your asses" in WW2. This appears to be a common misconception amongst a great many Americans and I have decided its my duty to put this right!