Jump to content

Thank God!


Forester

Recommended Posts

Posted

This Friday is the LAST time we have to pay the yanks for the weapons they "sold" us in WW11, so we could help THEM to win the war. Wonder what this gov will do with the money they save?. comments please.

The right Hon His Wors**t sorry Worship of the Loony Left, Wayne.

I need funding to fight the election!(cash only)8-)

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Frank Wilkinson
Posted
Forester - 2006-12-28 2:39 PM

This Friday is the LAST time we have to pay the yanks for the weapons they "sold" us in WW11, so we could help THEM to win the war. Wonder what this gov will do with the money they save?. comments please.

The right Hon His Wors**t sorry Worship of the Loony Left, Wayne.

I need funding to fight the election!(cash only)8-)

My comment is this - why would anyone wish to air such views, which are repugnant to many people, on a site dedicated to motorcaravans? Why would you wish to destroy any harmony that is generated amongst the members, many of whom enjoy helping each other without regard to their religion or politics.

I will answer you and this will be my one and only contribution to this debate. In WW II the US lost over 400,000 of its young men and women and over 700,000 were injured. The cost of the American intervention was $360 billion dollars.

The US never claimed to that it won the war on its own but it certainly helped to hasten the end of it both in Europe and in the Far East. If Pearl Harbor had never happened and the US hadn't entered the war Japan would have been free to concentrate its aggression against the Soviet Union and attack it from the east thus making a German victory more likely.

After the war the US's Marshall Plan, or to give it its correct name, the European Recovery Program (ERP) pumped in billions of dollars to help the war-ravaged countries recover and it is accepted by historians of all shades that it was ultimately reponsible for an unprecedented growth in prosperity over most of Europe. The US even offered the same aid to the Soviet Union but on condition that it allowed democratic reforms. The Soviets declined.

I and many others are grateful to the US for its contribution and sacrifice in WW II and I find it appalling that they can be insulted for not only lending us the materiel and the money to fight the war and to help us recover from it, but for giving us fifty years to repay the debt!

Finally, whilst I am happy to step in to such a debate occasionally I would never dream of starting one on a topic like this - what good does it serve? It is obvious to anyone that this is a political subject on which people will have opposing and strong views and I really do wonder what makes someone feel that debates such as this are suitable for this kind of forum.

Posted

Bit one sided that Frank as you fail to mention that these loans were granted on condition that all goods and material for the rebuilding of Europe were bought from America and shipped only on American merchant vessels.

They also demanded that they were allowed to build military bases not only in Europe, but all over the world in territories then and now owned by European nations.

To imply that they came to our aid purely out of the goodness of their hearts or from a moral point of view is only true up to a point, and while we all appreciate their efforts and sacrifices, the truth is that they drove a very hard bargain, to their advantage, when we were in no position to refuse whatever the aid on offer. Howard.

Posted

Hear! Hear! Frank. Well said.

 

By the way, Forester your signature has apostrophes in the words "Planes" and "Submarines". I assume that these are really supposed to be the plurals of "plane" and "submarine" in which case you should not use apostrophes before the "s". Where you should have used an apostrophe is in the word " 'planes" where the apostrophe indicates the ommission of part of the word, in your case "aero" as the complete word is "Aeroplane" So instead of writing posts that are in bad taste both securlarly and religously, I suggest that you go out and use some of your Christmas money and buy the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Trusse where you will learn something about writing English.

Guest Frank Wilkinson
Posted
colin&jb - 2006-12-28 6:22 PM what make's you think this site is dedicated to motor caravans?

You are quite right of course and I tend to forget that. It is fair to say that motorhomes is the dominant subject on this site and the number of posts makes that obvious but it is of course also about caravans and camping.

Although there appears to be very little traffic in these areas I shall try to remember in future that they are also a part of this forum.

Posted
You were given the benifit of the doubt first time round Roy, but subject matter apart, that was a disgraceful personal attack on one of the nicest guys on this forum, and if its in you, which I doubt, you should be truly ashamed.
Posted

Well, for what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Frank's analysis, though I do think he has gone a bit OTT on poor old Forester, who I think was only being a bit playfully provocative. 

The Americans paid dear, for the second time, in blood and treasure.  They were under no real obligation to do this, something many forget. 

As to who won, I think it fair to say we'd probably have lost had they not come to our aid.  That was surely what was in Churchill's mind when he so effectively addressed Congress.

As to the price and the hard bargain.  What should have happened?  How much is a American life worth: more, less, or the same, as a Brit's life?  Without that hard bargain there wouldn't have been any American aid, because the Americans themselves wouldn't have tolerated the cost. 

We may not like it, but it was the inevitable consequence of cocking up the peace after the First World War, for which, I am afraid, the French seem to have to bear most of the responsibility.

It can't be altered now by arguing over it, so let's not get heated about this one.  The lesson, surely is that as with one's parents, one should choose one's wars very carefully!

What will we spend the change on: why, Iraq of course!  What else worthwhile is there?  And that really is one that needs some explaining, from an American standpoint as well as from ours.

Posted
Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-28 6:40 PM
colin&jb - 2006-12-28 6:22 PM what make's you think this site is dedicated to motor caravans?

You are quite right of course and I tend to forget that. It is fair to say that motorhomes is the dominant subject on this site and the number of posts makes that obvious but it is of course also about caravans and camping.

Although there appears to be very little traffic in these areas I shall try to remember in future that they are also a part of this forum.

thank you franck happy new year!
Posted
If I had known that the subject would upset so many people I would not have posted it, I was ment as a bit of light banter. like at the top of the page it says GENERAL CHAT.RoyH As far as my signature goes "ITS MINE" I'll have it as I want it.  Howard thanks for your support.  I'll stick to questions about M Hs. I am sorry if i upset anyone .
Posted
Forester - 2006-12-29 6:12 AM

 

If I had known that the subject would upset so many people I would not have posted it, I was ment as a bit of light banter. like at the top of the page it says GENERAL CHAT.RoyH As far as my signature goes "ITS MINE" I'll have it as I want it.  Howard thanks for your support.  I'll stick to questions about M Hs. I am sorry if i upset anyone .

it did'nt & your right it is about general chat
Posted
RoyH - 2006-12-28 6:09 PM Hear! Hear! Frank. Well said. By the way, Forester your signature has apostrophes in the words "Planes" and "Submarines". I assume that these are really supposed to be the plurals of "plane" and "submarine" in which case you should not use apostrophes before the "s". Where you should have used an apostrophe is in the word " 'planes" where the apostrophe indicates the ommission of part of the word, in your case "aero" as the complete word is "Aeroplane" So instead of writing posts that are in bad taste both securlarly and religously, I suggest that you go out and use some of your Christmas money and buy the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Trusse where you will learn something about writing English.

Why did you send me a PM? you are fast enough to type on the forum your opinion so why PM me ???

Guest Frank Wilkinson
Posted
Forester - 2006-12-29 9:41 AM
RoyH - 2006-12-28 6:09 PM Hear! Hear! Frank. Well said. By the way, Forester your signature has apostrophes in the words "Planes" and "Submarines". I assume that these are really supposed to be the plurals of "plane" and "submarine" in which case you should not use apostrophes before the "s". Where you should have used an apostrophe is in the word " 'planes" where the apostrophe indicates the ommission of part of the word, in your case "aero" as the complete word is "Aeroplane" So instead of writing posts that are in bad taste both securlarly and religously, I suggest that you go out and use some of your Christmas money and buy the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Trusse where you will learn something about writing English.

Why did you send me a PM? you are fast enough to type on the forum your opinion so why PM me ???

I think that he believed that sending you a personal message would be a more sincere form of apology for commenting on your grammar. That's the impression that I got anyway and I don't think that he should be pilloried even more for doing what he thought was right.

Posted
Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-29 11:32 AM
Forester - 2006-12-29 9:41 AM
RoyH - 2006-12-28 6:09 PM Hear! Hear! Frank. Well said. By the way, Forester your signature has apostrophes in the words "Planes" and "Submarines". I assume that these are really supposed to be the plurals of "plane" and "submarine" in which case you should not use apostrophes before the "s". Where you should have used an apostrophe is in the word " 'planes" where the apostrophe indicates the ommission of part of the word, in your case "aero" as the complete word is "Aeroplane" So instead of writing posts that are in bad taste both securlarly and religously, I suggest that you go out and use some of your Christmas money and buy the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Trusse where you will learn something about writing English.

Why did you send me a PM? you are fast enough to type on the forum your opinion so why PM me ???

I think that he believed that sending you a personal message would be a more sincere form of apology for commenting on your grammar. That's the impression that I got anyway and I don't think that he should be pilloried even more for doing what he thought was right.

Thats not good enough Frank, and whether the apology was posted on this forum or by pm does not alter the fact that Roy deliberately set out to publicly humiliate and belittle a fellow member in such a way that leaves no doubt to his intentions.If you wish to condone or feel that such behaviour is acceptable then thats entirely up to you, but for myself, and I hope the majority of other users on this forum, then whatever the content or opinions given here, respect for other peoples feelings must always come first and foremost. Howard.
Guest Frank Wilkinson
Posted

On what grounds have you decided that I've condoned his behaviour? I said absolutely nothing that implied that! I was merely pointing out the reason why I believed he had sent a PM rather that a forum post. I also said that he shouldn't be pilloried for using the PM method, which he obviously felt was more personal and a better way of apologising. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with his original post and the rights and wrongs of it. It was, as I said earlier, simply about his method of apologising. Perhaps I'm due an aoplogy now?

Posted
Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-29 11:32 AM

 

I think that he believed that sending you a personal message would be a more sincere form of apology for commenting on your grammar. That's the impression that I got anyway and I don't think that he should be pilloried even more for doing what he thought was right.

Well there it is in black and white Frank. Not the merest hint of condemnation over Roys posting, which might have given the impression you agreed with his comments. All you have to do is agree he was totally out of order, and I shall offer you my full apologies for any misunderstanding. Howard.
Posted

Having apologised by PM to Forester I will now publically apologise. I was totally out of order, sorry to have caused upset and bickering betweeen you all.

 

Sincerely, A Happy 2007 to everyone.

Posted
Brian Kirby - 2006-12-28 7:36 PM

Well, for what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Frank's analysis, though I do think he has gone a bit OTT on poor old Forester, who I think was only being a bit playfully provocative. 

The Americans paid dear, for the second time, in blood and treasure.  They were under no real obligation to do this, something many forget. 

As to who won, I think it fair to say we'd probably have lost had they not come to our aid.  That was surely what was in Churchill's mind when he so effectively addressed Congress.

As to the price and the hard bargain.  What should have happened?  How much is a American life worth: more, less, or the same, as a Brit's life?  Without that hard bargain there wouldn't have been any American aid, because the Americans themselves wouldn't have tolerated the cost. 

We may not like it, but it was the inevitable consequence of cocking up the peace after the First World War, for which, I am afraid, the French seem to have to bear most of the responsibility.

It can't be altered now by arguing over it, so let's not get heated about this one.  The lesson, surely is that as with one's parents, one should choose one's wars very carefully!

What will we spend the change on: why, Iraq of course!  What else worthwhile is there?  And that really is one that needs some explaining, from an American standpoint as well as from ours.

Hi Brian. I have neither the vocabulary or skill with typewritter to answer you or Frank in full on this matter, but if you get the time, there,s a article by Max Hastings in todays Daily Mail which might explain how myself and others feel about Americas attitude and involvement during this time. Howard.
Guest Frank Wilkinson
Posted
howardtcz - 2006-12-29 1:48 PM
Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-29 11:32 AM I think that he believed that sending you a personal message would be a more sincere form of apology for commenting on your grammar. That's the impression that I got anyway and I don't think that he should be pilloried even more for doing what he thought was right.

Well there it is in black and white Frank. Not the merest hint of condemnation over Roys posting, which might have given the impression you agreed with his comments. All you have to do is agree he was totally out of order, and I shall offer you my full apologies for any misunderstanding. Howard.

So now am I being traduced for not saying something? Of course he was wrong, but what's the point of me condemning him again? You'd already made the point and he'd already apologised and said that he'd send a PM to Forester to apologise to him directly. I took that as a good thing - Forester obviously didn't but that's his perogative.

I reiterate - my post was purely about his method of apologising and I fail to see how anyone could infer from it that I agreed with his sentiments. He thought that it was better to PM Forester and again, I don't think that he should be further pilloried for that, as he obviously thought that he was doing the decent thing.

Posted
RoyH - 2006-12-29 2:26 PM

 

Having apologised by PM to Forester I will now publically apologise. I was totally out of order, sorry to have caused upset and bickering betweeen you all.

 

Sincerely, A Happy 2007 to everyone.

Shurrup Roy. wer,e all enjoying ourselves, so stop interfering. 8-)
Posted

"Of course he was wrong".

Thats all I wanted to hear Frank, and I fully apologise for any suggestion that you might have thought otherwise. Just watch your Ps and Qs in future.

*-)

Posted

FOR GOODNESS SAKE *-) how can we expect World Peace if you can't be civil here!!!! It's a free World - because the Yanks helped us in WW II etc. etc. etc........ ;-)

 

I found the thread historic - I had NO idea that these types of deals had happened. I would find the vitriol humerous if I hadn't been slammed in the past on another site :'( ......... we can discuss topics outside of motorhomes because we are a free nation: and *why* are we free ????? *-)

 

Sending peaceful vibes to all concerned ..........

 

(^)

 

and by the way, I don't believe in any kind of 'God' so where does he/she come into it all ;-)

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...