Commonwealth 'network for future'

by Phoenix One UK Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:23 am

Commonwealth 'network for future'

pa.press.net, Updated: 28/10/2011 05:55

...

Asked whether the Commonwealth was outdated, he said: "It is an organisation for the future. We live in a world of networks and this is a great network: a third of the world's population, 54 different countries across six continents. But not just a network, a network with values about promoting human rights and democracy and freedom.

For full text link: http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/commonwealth-network-for-future-8

Unquote: =======================

This debate was started within another forum the date this article was published.

note [Foreign Secretary William Hague] said, ''We want to see the Commonwealth strengthening its role as a standard bearer for human rights and democracy. It remains uniquely placed to do so; the sheer diversity of its membership gives it the potential to speak with a truly global moral authority.''

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8854601/David-Cameron-Commonwealth-must-strengthen-human-rights.html

Unquote.

Note Commonwealth nations are pushing to establish a system of export and credit guarantees designed to promote trade and growth for the poorer countries in the 54-member organization.

Quote:

Leaders from the group, which owes its origins to the former British Empire, have met this week in Perth where many hope Europe's financial crisis and growing concerns over growth will lend the meeting renewed relevance, especially among developing nations. Commonwealth countries account for a third of world's population and five of its members sit on the Group of 20 nations.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002922751910902.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Unquote.

Note you can acquire a great deal of information directly from the Commonwealth Secretariat's website on

Link: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/

I also noted some europhiles here are pushing the trade arguement as being a benefit of being an EU member. Not so, that argument was shot down in flames long ago.

Here is a direct link to the World Trade Organisation: http://www.wto.org/

If you visit the membership listed therein, note all 27 EU members are als members of the WTO, including Greece. Not one requires the EU for trade, and never did.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:44 am

Ah, yes. "The Commonwealth". Do you think they've had time to forget the kick in the teeth delivered by Ted Heath when he took us into Europe?

The first victim was Commonwealth Preference which allowed e.g. lamb and butter from Australia and NZ to enter the UK free of Duty alongside things like sugar and tropical fruits from the Caribbean countries.

On the other hand, perhaps they will have found other friends to play with by now.

by Phoenix One UK Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:49 am

I had been enguaged in debate on Commonwealth within another forum, and your expressed view was shared by another where I responded.

Within very recent meeting between Commonwealth countries in Perth Australia, all were very receptive to rebuilding and such.

The Commonwealth is the future, and that future looks bright.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:06 pm

The Commonwealth is the future, and that future looks bright

Well it's dam sight better than Europe's, i voted against Ted Heath common market, and will vote to get out of Europe if we get the chance to vote. I am glad Gordon Brown kept us out of the Euro, Gordon is getting blamed for a lot of things, but he can't be blamed for the mess the Euro is in.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:23 pm

William Hague said, ''We want to see the Commonwealth strengthening its role as a standard bearer for human rights and democracy”.

Another joke from the pillock who announced to the world that Gaddafi was on his way to Venezuela!
Evil or Very Mad

I’m an agnostic when it comes to the EU, but at least its 27 member states practise some form of democracy. The same cannot be said for all of the 54 disparate nations which make up the Commonwealth. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are just fine, but as oftenwrong mentioned, they’ve had 38 years to “find other friends to play with”.

What about some of the others? Jamaica and South Africa are the crime capitals of the world, Pakistan is a failed state which exports terrorism, Kenya can’t even protect its tourists from pirates, and poor old Bangladesh is one of the world’s natural disaster zones.

Far from being standard bearers for “human rights and democracy”, there are a number of brutal and undemocratic regimes in that list of 54. Swaziland is one of the poorest and most Aids-riddled countries in the world, where an autocratic king with more than a dozen wives marries another teenager each year and spends the nation’s meagre resources on palaces and expensive cars. Even supposedly 'civilised' countries such as Singapore and Malaysia sometimes flog people until they bleed for non-violent crimes, or hang them when they haven’t committed murder.

No thanks, I think on balance I prefer the EU.

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:50 am

There certainly have been a number of Churchills, but there’s only one Churchill (Sir Winston).

There seems to have been a number of commonwealths, but there’s only one Commonwealth (The British).

When it’s a “one-fer”, it’s usually of sufficient “uniquity” to also be of sufficient value to cherish and preserve.

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:43 am

Ivan wrote:
... the EU [amd] 27 member states practise some form of democracy. The same cannot be said for all of the 54 disparate nations which make up the Commonwealth. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are just fine...

Let’s compare lemons to limes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand to Germany, France, Italy) rather than apples to forklifts.

1939-1945: Canada, never directly attacked, sacrifices citizens and resources in the Battle of the Atlantic, Normandy, and other locales (including Hong Kong and Singapore) to help ensure the existence of the United Kingdom.

1939-1945: Australia sacrifices citizens and resources in the Battle of Port Moresby and other locales to help ensure the existence of the United Kingdom.

1939-1945: New Zealand sacrifices citizens and resources in the struggle to rid the South Atlantic of the Graf Spee, and in other efforts, to help ensure the existence of the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile…

1939-1945: Germany attempts to subjugate the United Kingdom.

1939-1944: Italy helps Germany’s attempt to subjugate the United Kingdom.

1940-1944: Vichy France helps Germany’s attempt to subjugate the United Kingdom.

In the here and now…

2011: Citizens of the United Kingdom turn their backs on their Aussie, Canadian, and New Zealander brothers.

Ivan wrote:
No thanks, I think on balance I prefer the EU.

Why?

by bobby Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:12 am

ROC, you conveniently forget to mention the possible war between Your lot v Canada and Britain.

"Hoover-Era American Plan For War Against Britain and Canada Uncovered
American military officials drew up a secret plan in 1930 for war against Britain in which Canada would be the main battleground. "Joint Plan Red," as it was known, envisaged the elimination of Britain as a trading rival.

Professor Floyd Rudmin of Queens University in Ontario, Canada, charges that the plan was a blueprint for an American invasion of Canada. According to the plan, the United States was prepared to invade Canada if political unrest brought on by Quebec's secession threatened American access to Canada's fresh water and cheap hydroelectric power.

The war plan document was drawn up by the Joint Board of the Army and Navy in May 1930, when Herbert Hoover was President. It identified Britain as Red, Canada as Crimson, Australia and New Zealand as Scarlet, and the U.S. as Blue. Its aim was to dismember the British empire on the grounds of "competition and interference with American foreign trade."

Describing the objectives of a possible war, the document stated:

"It is believed that Blue's war aims in case of war with Red [Britain] should be the expulsion of Red from North and South America and the definite elimination of Red as a strong competitor in foreign trade."

So please stop calling us and the Canadians your Brothers, based on what went on in WW2. I will never be a Brother to an American. You entered the War after Japan gave Y'All a drubbing at Pearl Harbour, nothing to do with helping your "Brothers" you declaired war on Germany purely because we British where already at war with Japan, and it was in your interest to join us, as we had not only Brits but a good suply of Comonwealth Troops. The US was the only Country to profit from WW2. We assisted many other Country's for the sake of Victory, whereas you sold all you could for the sake of profit.
You have mentioned before "The Battle of Britain" and went on about those brave boys fighting not only the Luftwaffe but exhaustion, believe me ROC, not one of them did it for the Good old US of A, and was won using Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Huricanes, flown by British and Comonwealth Pilots, with several very worthy Polish pilots thrown in for very good measure. There where a couple of Yanks, but one must question as to what their motives where, I think they came for the fun of it, but soon realised War aint fun.
By the way ROC why do you keep refering to us as Y' All, it all sounds a bit Texas red neck to me, and going by what you have told us about yourself you most certainly are not a red neck.

by **Ivan** Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:31 pm

Rock. You asked why I, on balance, prefer the EU to the Commonwealth, although I thought I’d answered that already.

Some of the institutions of the EU may be undemocratic and unaccountable, but the 27 member countries elect their governments. That isn’t the case with all the Commonwealth countries. The EU members are signed up to the Human Rights Act, but there are a number of countries in the Commonwealth where human rights are not respected. You single out three democratic countries which supported the UK in World War Two – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – but make no mention of the other 51.

To all intents and purposes, the UK sidelined the Commonwealth back in 1973 when we joined the EU. As to making comparisons with what was going on in the 1940s, although we must never forget those events, we really must move on. Logically, if we use your argument, why stop with the 1940s? Should we still be sore about the whipping which the Americans gave us in 1812-14?

by astra Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:49 pm

Some Scots are still sore about the drubbing the Southern Scots and English gave them in 1746.

Grudges can be held on to it seems

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:26 pm

A bit of “prologue”, bobby: You seem to have failed to notice that my post (today, 9 November 2011, 8:43) failed to mention the United States of America.

bobby wrote:
ROC, you conveniently forget to mention the possible war between Your lot v Canada and Britain.

I didn’t “conveniently forget to mention” anything.

(Note to other readers: I was born post WWII. My entire cognizant life has been lived in a post WWII world free of Nazi domination, due in large part to the extreme sacrifices of British and Commonwealth citizens and troops, 1939-1945. The document referenced by bobby was penned in 1930.)

bobby wrote:
So please stop calling us and the Canadians your Brothers, based on what went on in WW2.

No.

bobby wrote:
I will never be a Brother to an American.

Your call, your loss.

bobby wrote:
You entered the War after Japan gave Y'All a drubbing at Pearl Harbour

True.

By the way, for your information, bobby, it’s “Pearl Harbor”, not “Pearl Harbour.” American place name, a proper noun, American spelling.

bobby wrote:
nothing to do with helping your "Brothers"

Not true.

bobby wrote:
you declaired war on Germany purely because we British where already at war with Japan

Not true.

bobby wrote:
... whereas you sold all you could for the sake of profit.

Not true. The Marshall Plan was not profit-generated.

bobby wrote:
You have mentioned before "The Battle of Britain" and went on about those brave boys fighting not only the Luftwaffe but exhaustion

No, sir, “went on” does not describe what I have said on this and previous boards about the RAF aviators who saved the world in 1940. One can never sufficiently thank the “so few”, the noble souls who, as you’ve correctly mentioned, fought Luftwaffe, exhaustion, and anything else that they had to fight in order, in Churchill’s words, “defend our island home.” These courageous men were indeed “bitter weeds”, which the would-be Nazi overlords were never able to digest.

“Never have so many owed so much to so few.” 15 September 1940 is mentioned far too infrequently in our cavalier times.

bobby wrote:
believe me ROC, not one of them did it for the Good old US of A

How have you determined this? Did you conduct a poll of every RAF aviator who participated in the Battle of Britain? If so, please post you poll instrument and poll results hereon, that I might independently verify, and thus believe, your statement that “not one of them did it for the Good old US of A.”

bobby wrote:
... [The Batle of Britain] was won using Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Huricanes, flown by British and Comonwealth Pilots, with several very worthy Polish pilots...

True.

bobby wrote:
There where a couple of Yanks

The RAF American USV contingent numbered more than “a couple.”

bobby wrote:
… one must question as to what their motives where

No, one mustn’t.

bobby wrote:
I think they came for the fun of it

You may think as you desire to think.

bobby wrote:
By the way ROC why do you keep refering to us as Y' All

Because “y’all” is plural (as is “us.”)

bobby wrote:
it all sounds a bit Texas red neck to me

Does it now?

bobby wrote:
and going by what you have told us about yourself you most certainly are not a red neck.

Regardless of what I “most certainly [am] not”, I most certainly am a Texan. As such, I invite you and your family to visit and find out for yourselves just which Texans might say “y’all” when we’re talking to y’all.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:51 pm

Other languages have a separate word for "you" in the singular, and "you" meaning "all of you". They also have masculine and feminine forms, a formal address and a familiar version.

Phew!

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:19 pm

Ivan wrote:
Rock. You asked why I, on balance, prefer the EU to the Commonwealth…

Some of the institutions of the EU may be undemocratic and unaccountable, but the 27 member countries elect their governments. That isn’t the case with all the Commonwealth countries. The EU members are signed up to the Human Rights Act, but there are a number of countries in the Commonwealth where human rights are not respected.

I’m not saying the Commonwealth isn’t in need of some weeding out, but I believe it’s certainly worth cherishing and maintaining.

If maintenance requires scourging out some current members whose government do not uphold the principles of democracy under God exemplified by the Commonwealth’s core members, then so be it. Any garden that produces good fruit must be weeded and pruned.

Ivan wrote:
You single out three democratic countries which supported the UK in World War Two – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – but make no mention of the other 51.

I intentionally single out the core of the Commonwealth. I think it’s past time, for instance, for Pakistan to be issued an ultimatum with a firm time limit that reads something like this: “Comply with Commonwealth principles by instituting real democracy and ceasing covert support of terrorists, or exit the Commonwealth.”

Ivan wrote:
To all intents and purposes, the UK sidelined the Commonwealth back in 1973 when we joined the EU.

I agree with you on his point. Where I disagree is in my answer to the question, “Was it worth it?” I think not.

Ivan wrote:
As to making comparisons with what was going on in the 1940s, although we must never forget those events, we really must move on.

But Ivan, my British brother, there wouldn’t be a world as we know it to move on within had the UK and its Commonwealth allies not stood firm from 1939 through 8 December 1941. Lest we forget, “Never have so many owed so much to so few.” You and I are part of the “so many.”

Ivan wrote:
Logically, if we use your argument, why stop with the 1940s? Should we still be sore about the whipping which the Americans gave us in 1812-14?

Y’all also gave us a whipping in 1812-1814. The White House didn’t sp0ntaneously ignite, and The Star Spangled Banner doesn’t refer to an American USV victory.

But I’ve no problem with remembering the War of 1812. Ironically, that war started the UK and US on the road to lasting peace between us, and eventually to the brotherhood amongst us, the UK and US, and the “neglected” Commonwealth members, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, which nonetheless continues into the 21st Century.

You might remember “fifty-four forty or fight?” If that war cry had been actualized, and had America USV been successful, most of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would be American USV territory. If the equivalent UK battle cry had been actualized, and had the UK been successful, most of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and perhaps Wisconsin and Nebraska, would now be part of Canada. Instead, we’uns and y’all went to the conference table, and the boundary between then UK territory and US territory between Lake Superior and the Pacific Ocean was set without a shot being fired. Including the eastern boundary and the Alaskan-British Columbia/Yukon Territory boundary, the Canadian-US boundary is the longest land boundary between two sovereign countries on the globe. And it remains a monument of peace in an un-peaceful world.

The War of 1812 costs the lives of humans on both sides, but its fruits have been lasting peace between first two and now three countries.

by Guest Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:40 pm

For the sake of concise precision, the English language cries out for the inclusion of “y’all” as the recognized plural of “you.”

by bobby Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:17 pm

For the sake of concise precision, the English language cries out for the inclusion of “y’all” as the recognized plural of “you.”
Just like sport, you take up our games and change them beyond all recognition, now you are advocating the same with our Language, Its only you Americans that use the expression y'all, and as far as I am concerned it should stay on the other side of the pond.

By the way ROC, I have an appology to make, there where in fact a total of nine American Pilots in the Battle of Britain, a few more than a couple but still relatively insignificant, and I still question their motives.

As for me holding a poll as to if the Battle of Britain pilots fought for the benefit of the USA, other than the nine Yank pilots the USA where at that time still contemplating the profits to be made. You weren't even in the war in 1940, in fact you didn't get into the War untill December 1941, and the majority of american troops on the European front didn't actualy see action untill D'Day where again the British out numbered the American contingent.

by **Ivan** Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:23 pm

Should we still be sore about the whipping which the Americans gave us in 1812-14?

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:33 pm

I always think those Colonials to be quite fascinating.

by astra Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:36 pm

Should we still be sore about the whipping which the Americans gave us in 1812-14?

Well, it's coming to the time of year, when conversations on how to put the world to rights, dries up. Getting back at the collonials heats the atmoshere as the embers die down! (hic) drunken

by astra Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:43 pm

Ivan, said, prefer the EU to the Commonwealth

OK, Iceland has renegged on paying back the billions we gave them.
Greece has recieved a shed load, and it looks like a % is going to be written off, so iffin weget payback, it will be nowhere near what we donated.
Now Italy is nipples up and more cash is going to be thrown at the EU's hungry maw!
We pay the Commonwealth moneys as of now, but cannot, through EU law exploit the use of that revenue. We cannot pay for twotrade schemes at the same time and we should kick the EU into touch!

The Germans are NOT so great, like Israel, they would fall flat on their faces without American$

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:02 pm

Iceland has never been in the EU and Britons "invested" their money voluntarily in Icelandic Banks at attractive rates of interest that quite obviously could not be sustained by such a small country. Caveat emptor!

by astra Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:15 pm

Yes Did not Denmark and UK LEND moneys, to keep their banks afloat? It is to that cash I allude!

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:32 am

Ivan,

One of my all time favorite “fun” songs. Here’s the original:

And the “official British version”:

Nonetheless, y’all gave as thorough a set of “whuppins’” as we’uns! Call it a draw that benefitted both sides.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:01 am

“We gotta sink the Bismarck ‘cause the world depends on us”

In May 1941, “us” was “y’all.”

by tlttf Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:17 am

bobby, is your bitterness anything to do with 1/2 your lineage being Italian?

by Shirina Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:30 am

I will never be a Brother to an American.

I happen to be an American. Does this mean I can snub you? Perhaps a fine "harumph" is in order. I see that your history is very surgical, bobby, the kind of history that is cherry picked as carefully as Colombian coffee beans. So let's get to it then, shall we?

You entered the War after Japan gave Y'All a drubbing at Pearl Harbour, nothing to do with helping your "Brothers" you declaired war on Germany purely because we British where already at war with Japan, and it was in your interest to join us, as we had not only Brits but a good suply of Comonwealth Troops.

In case you haven't noticed, the year 1938 was in a different era than the year 1946. Everything changed after the war, but you're focusing on the situation before the war. That in itself renders your argument moot. Britain and America were not the best of friends before the war, and that just might have something to do with why the average American wasn't too keen on dying for Britain twice in 20 years. It was starting to become a habit with Europeans to start world wars, and the US wanted nothing to do with it. I believe it was Washington who warned us to beware of foreign entanglements. You seem to suggest that wars are entered into with the same lighthearted whimsy as one might enter a pie eating contest. Britain herself should know this as well as we did given how reluctant she was to fight Germany - hence the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia and a complete failure to enforce the Treaty of Versailles. But Britain did declare war ... not Germany, Britain. Thus Britain was in a pickle of her own making, and the US was not obligated in any way to rush off to war in Britain's defense.

You also forget that the United States was not a major military power in 1939. Nations like Portugal and Chile had larger armies than America did. If we had went to war in '39 along side Britain, America's help would have been negligible anyhow, so it's not as though Britain was missing anything by not having America at her side. Fortunately Roosevelt knew war was inevitable, and those two extra years allowed the US to recruit, train, and build, and it allowed Britain to win both the Battle of Britain and at El Alamein and Tobruk without American assistance - and that was absolutely essential for British morale. Once America got involved, Britain became the junior partner.

And no, Britain was not "already" at war with the Japanese. Japan declared war on Britain on December 7th, 1941 - the same day it declared war on the US. Britain returned the favor the next day.

The US was the only Country to profit from WW2.

The US was the only country left standing after WWII, so go figure. Wars are always about profit for some, and armies do not fight for free - and workers do not build for free. Wars cost money. They always have. Apparently you expected America to ramp up its industry and give everything away. Britain was all but bankrupt by the time America began Lend-Lease because the British government had to pay its own profiteering defense contractors. You can't blame America for profiting when British industry was doing the same. The only people who profited were the weapons manufacturers on both sides of the Pond; the American people had to buy war bonds so the US government could afford its own military.

by Shirina Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:45 am

Its only you Americans that use the expression y'all, and as far as I am concerned it should stay on the other side of the pond.

Rock can say "y'all" as often as he wishes to. I lived in Texas for a year - maybe I'll start saying it since it seems to grind your gears so much.

and I still question their motives.

You only question their motives because you're biased. If you're going to question the motives of American fliers, then you had best question the motive of every non-British pilot who flew. Otherwise you're just being a wee bit bigoted.

other than the nine Yank pilots the USA where at that time still contemplating the profits to be made.

How does one profit by volunteering to risk one's life in someone else's battle? I'll wait for you to explain that one - it ought to be an interesting squirm-fest.

You weren't even in the war in 1940

LOL! I can't get over how some Brits simply can't grasp the political changes that occurred after the war. You seem to think that America's relationship with Britain was exactly the same before the war as it was after. Sorry, but it wasn't. I can't quite fathom why some Brits believe that America was somehow obligated to rush blindly to Britain's aid. Perhaps you have forgotten 1776 and how America was not a British colony nor a member of the Commonwealth in 1939. We had no obligation to declare war on Britain's enemies. The Dominican Republic didn't declare war until Dec. 11th ... why not have a go at them, as well? Damned Dominicans sure waited long enough to get into the fray!

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:44 pm

The last two countries to declare War on Germany were ....

Turkey, January 1945 and

Argentina in March of the same year.

by **Ivan** Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:48 pm

Shirina wrote:-
Britain did declare war ... not Germany

Quite true, we declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland. And what did we do when the war ended? We handed Poland over to the Soviet Union.
Sad

But that’s history, and we don’t want any repetition of it, so once again, to my surprise, I find myself defending the EU. Surely it’s better if the old animosities in Europe are replaced by free trade, co-operation and a measure of integration? The events of the 1940s must never be forgotten - those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it - but they're the very reason that all European countries should have close ties with their neighbours if conflict in the continent is to be confined to history.

Plenty of people in the UK argue that we should never have got involved in Iraq, and more recently Libya. So why do some of us think that the Americans should have rushed into a European war in 1939? Churchill asked Roosevelt for help, but although he was sympathetic, Roosevelt was restricted by the Neutrality Acts, which forbade arms sales on credit or the loaning of money to belligerent nations. However, Roosevelt came up with the idea of “Lend-Lease”, which by 1943-44 provided about a quarter of all British munitions. Most Republicans in Congress voted against the scheme, but it came into force in March 1941, nine months before the USA was dragged into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

For more details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

There was at least one family in the USA "contemplating the profits that could be made", as bobby mentioned. The Bush family certainly profited from the war. There is evidence that Prescott Bush served as a money launderer for the Nazis. The Bush's bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied soldiers, while the Thyssen’s coal mines, in the words of John Loftus, “used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals”.

Full story:-
http://www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:03 pm

Most people see Europe as a trading area, which is fine by me, it is the laws and jurisdictions being unellectivly past to us that strick in the craw.

We joined Europe as a trading bloq, fine, but join the single currency - no way.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:03 pm

Ivan wrote:
Shirina wrote:-
Britain did declare war ... not Germany

Quite true, we declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland.

I’ve no problem with the timeliness of y’all’s declaration of war on Germany. Decent folks in the UK, and decent folks worldwide, fell for the “old okee-doke” perpetrated by Neville “Peace-In-Our-Time” Chamberlain, whose comical charade when touting that worthless piece of paper waxed decidedly un-comical when Britain stood alone with her Commonwealth allies in the dark days of 1940.

We were all bamboozled, including Chief Bamboozler Chamberlain, which was Uncle Adolf’s plan all along. Americans USV were perhaps even more dazzled by Adolf the charming beast than any Brits, so we ought not be pointing fingers across the pond at one another.

Ivan wrote:
… to my surprise, I find myself defending the EU. Surely it’s better if the old animosities in Europe are replaced by free trade, co-operation and a measure of integration?

The events of the 1940s must never be forgotten - those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

… they're the very reason that all European countries should have close ties with their neighbours if conflict in the continent is to be confined to history.

Close economic ties? Of course. Prudence precludes seeking anything less. Close economic ties with a string attached? You’ve said that upon the UK’s entrance into the EU in the early seventies, your Commonwealth brothers, at least those about whom I care (Aussies, Canadians, New Zealanders), were “kicked to the curb” (my words) and left to find other enduring ties.

Why was it necessary to divorce Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, whose leaders and citizens have ever been there in need, to marry Germany, Italy, and France, whose leaders and citizens… well, you get the picture. I believe y’all should have kept your wives and taken on the EU Big Three and their consorts as concubines.

Ivan wrote:
… Churchill asked Roosevelt for help, but although he was sympathetic, Roosevelt was restricted by the Neutrality Acts, which forbade arms sales on credit or the loaning of money to belligerent nations. However, Roosevelt came up with the idea of “Lend-Lease”, which by 1943-44 provided about a quarter of all British munitions… it came into force in March 1941, nine months before the USA was dragged into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour

Lend lease is a monument to the shared applied geopolitical acumen of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, both of whom also understood the necessity to wait upon the right time for America USV’s participation in ridding the world of Nazi tyranny.

Had the United States entered WWII on 6 December 1941, we would have done so with a divided Congress, most likely divided along party lines, and a divided citizenry. Two days later, 8 December 1941, when the United States of America declared war on the Empire of Japan (which had declared war on the United Kingdom on 7 December 1941, the date of the Pearl Harbor attack), we did so with a united Congress (one dissenting vote) and a united citizenry. “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

Ivan wrote:
There was at least one family in the USA "contemplating the profits that could be made"… [the] Bush family…

I’m unsure of “Daddy” Bush’s involvement in WWII war profiteering.

I’m absolutely sure, although I wouldn’t be able to prove it in either a civil court of law (preponderance of the evidence) or a criminal court of law (evidence beyond a reasonable doubt), that Daddy Bush was deeply involved in election “stealing” in a certain South American country circa 1973, and deeply involved in the rise of a certain entrepreneur whose entrepreneurship centered upon nationwide (US) distribution of certain controlled substance circa 1985-1990.

On the flip side, Saddam Hussein was in deep over his head when he faced off against Daddy Bush in 1990-1991. Props given where props are due.

In his retirement, I trust Daddy Bush about as much as I trusted him in 1973 and from 1985 through 1990. But Barbara, George W, and Laura (his wife, son, and daughter-in-law) are welcome at my house for dinner (or breakfast, or lunch, or just to “hang out”) anytime.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:45 pm

All Wars are stupid, regardless of who starts them. Conquests don't endure.
Jerusalem has at various times in its history been "conquered" by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Persians and Uncle Tom Cobbley an' all. So who's running it now and who will be running it in 2112 AD?

by Shirina Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:18 pm

All Wars are stupid, regardless of who starts them. Conquests don't endure.

Well, actually, they do endure. Occupations do not endure, but conquests do. The conquest of Rome has endured. The conquest of Britain by the Normans has endured. The conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish has endured. The conquest of the Native Americans by Europeans (and later Americans) has endured. The conquest of Spain by the Moors has, in its own way, endured. An occupation, such as the occupation of Iraq or the occupation of Allied nations by Germany - they rarely, if ever, endure.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:50 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Conquests don't endure.

Adding to the list of enduring conquests, principle, concepts, and ideas proffered in 1690 by John Locke have conquered the significant portion of the third largest continent (Canada and the US), the most southerly large island group (New Zealand), an entire continent (Australia), and bits and pieces of the remaining world landscape.

The conquests endure, and the principles, concepts, and ideas have been “signed off on” by every nation that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I’m glad my two countries, the Great Sovereign State of Texas and the United States of America, were conquered and remain conquered.

by bobby Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:13 pm

The problem of war, is that we send our best and strongest to fight and die, leaving the weak and feeble at home breeding spreading their weak and feeble genes, Totally goes against the rules of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:28 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/content/image_galleries/hylton_castle_gallery.shtml?20

Rock, I started the link at picture 20, pic 9 is up your street as well!

the last two pictures show the place in some Glory (Old Glory getit??)
Indeed some scholars say it was the FIRST star on your flag, this may be sumfin' I wish I had not mentioned! Embarassed

It is thought that the stars on the family crest were the 'inspiration' for the stars on your Flag!!

You bein' in the Lone Star State 'n'all!! Smile

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:48 pm

bobby wrote:The problem of war, is that we send our best and strongest to fight and die, leaving the weak and feeble at home breeding spreading their weak and feeble genes, Totally goes against the rules of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

But when the soldiers come home, they tend to make up for lost time.

"Baby boomers" is the current description.

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:53 pm

The problem of war, is that we send our best and strongest to fight and die,

Just what the Corries song 'Flower of Scotland' is all about!

Any country could place it's name in that title, well apart from ------- (I hereby invite you to fill in the blanks!!) Very Happy

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:48 am

Astra,

Thank you for the pics. That’s an interesting speculation as to the origins of the Stars and Stripes and the Bars and Lone Star.

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:55 am

by bobby Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:36 am

tlttf wrote:bobby, is your bitterness anything to do with 1/2 your lineage being Italian?

Hello Landy, hows tricks. You are absolutely correct. In fact I wrote a longish post yesterday in answer to Sharina, yet somehow its vanished. Who moderates the moderators, thats what I now want to know. I saw the post, yet next time I looked it vanished, I can only assume the moderator removed it, and funny enough the moderator is Sharina herself.

by Sponsored content