StarGateWars Forums

buck wrote:Ahem. Colin Powell, Probally one of the most influencial political Figures who hasnt been president in the USA, Backed Obama this morning, Against his own party. Thats gotta win more centre Con undeicided votes to the obama camp...

Killer wrote:I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
or you disagree, and everyone else agrees you are wrong
When I think of British in WWII, I think of the following:

Defending Poland and France, showed British were full of talking but, not much action.
why did the uk officially join the war? to defend ourselves and our allies. im not a dictionary but fighting a global war seems to be action.

Battle of Dunkirk, how did that work out for the British?
it was an evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force. in a way it was a triumph getting that many troops to safety under the circumstances. it provided a boost to morale. it meant the uk wouldnt submit to germany. so dunkirk worked out quite well overall.

Lend Lease Program, where America had to produce almost everything for the British and Russia.
produce almost everything? no. the uk was virtually under seige. btw lend-lease started 18 months after the war did.

British protecting the convoys from the German Wolf Packs, how did that work out? Oh, the Americans had to help do that too.
yes they helped. no one said they didnt. perhaps you are confused

The powerhouse Russia that you speak of, how long did it take Stalin to defeat the little country of Finland? This was before America started sending them supplies also.

British defending Africa, that went on for years and British could not do anything there either, until America got involved.
Bernard Montgomery and the British Eighth Army drove the axis powers out of north africa. america helped but it was mainly a british/commonwealth victory. if you had sense you would realise that it was hard for the uk to fight around the world while they were still under threat of german invasion.

It seems like before WWII was over, the British had to get help from America, Canada, Australia, India, Russia and etc. That seems remarkably like right now, British blow a lot of hot air but, they want everyone else to pay for it.

Killer wrote:No, you did a nice job pointing out that British for the past 100 years or so always needs help before they get their arses handed to them.
your knowledge of history is lacking mate. books contain knowledge. open one sometime.

I for one am tired of seeing America waste its young soldiers and wealth defending the rest of the world. And everyone else either taking credit for it or **Filtered** about what we did wrong.
america isnt the only country 'defending the rest of the world.' many countries sacrifice troops for the greater good of the world. your arrogance in thinking america is a superman-country who is the worlds only decent nation is stupid. your foolishness tarnishes the reputation of other americans who are sensible.

Any punk can win a fight by ganging up on someone with their friends. But, it takes a man to fight by himself against large odds with no outside help.
er. . .battle of Britain?

Cpt. Lois Lane wrote:and the British people (ouch.. English, Welsh, Scottish.. Falklandian. ).

buck wrote:Appy, Your ignorance both astounds and terrifies me. Your such a sterotype.

That being said, without the UK, there would be no america, Well there would, But its natives would live there, instead of you guys. So without us makeing the USA with our money and resources, defending its borders etc...there would be no USA to be our savour! Thus via logic we can conclude that without britain and her glorious empire (Rule Britania!) There would be no USA to Help Out. Some wonderful fore thought by the king me thinks!

buck wrote:Its fact me boy, Fact...

WW2 A tea party however? Whatever you say...Weirdooooo....

APADAMEK! wrote:

buck wrote:Its fact me boy, Fact...

WW2 A tea party however? Whatever you say...Weirdooooo....

it's not fact, because your history needs some updating my boy. England was not the only colonial power in the North American region


No in-fact there was Spanish and French colonies all over. Hence why you have places such as French-Canada and Louisiana named after a certain french king and lent it's name to the "Louisiana purchase" which was Thomas Jefferson buying a large chunk of North American soil from these "French" these "French" would have easily replaced England as a colonizing power in the U.S. That's probably just a stereotype though.

Sabin le Rose wrote:Maybe this is just the internet.

But I have found that tons and tons of Obama supporters are...

A) Underage.
B) Aren't eligable to vote/won't end up going to the polls for whatever reason.