I've just laughed my breakfast up all over the keyboard. Were you HONESTLY comparing Mr Churchill to Mr Bush?????
What sort of fool are you?
Churchill) Fought real soldiers, made a heroic ascape from an enemy prison in Africa, son of a lord, saved the civilised world from a barbaric government.
Bush) Withdrew from Kyoto agreement, Started a war, never found any WMD, got too many of our chaps killed. Has this really cool idea that bombing civvies is OK. (Brit units included in the civvie category ).
...i'm awfully sorry to put the cat among the pidgeons here but i'm not sure that more than four people in the world truly believe that Bush is even comparable to Churchill....discuss
Hey when it comes to body counts i think bush got long way to match churchill records . Dardenelles anyone dieppe Carpet Bombing germany
he was all for using anthrax on the krauts .
Came up with lots of crap ideas, apart, from saving the free world and he did it pissed top bloke bush tee total and still fouls up no comparison
fought afrkainers (even librals have to like him for that one)
did it very drunk
Bush sober ( allways a bad sign )
dodgy busniess deals
two wars neither over yet ask same question in 10 years he might still
pull it off
All political careers in democracy end in failure you get voted out .Only years later can you be seen as heroic politician and then only over certain parts of your career like mageret thatcher . Winning falklands good
poll tax bad . Bush has long way to go lets see if he gets 2nd term
sort out wars first then compare
No man is perfect. The Gallipoli campaign was Winston's idea. What can be said is commeth the hour commeth the man. We rediscovered Churchill in 1940 and let's face it. There are a lot worse people than Geo W Bush Esq to have in the white house. They wan't to elect Hillary Clinton for heaven's sake. (Will that make Bill first man or just Prize Member)
Well, let's see here. First off it's really too bad Winston isn't alive to remind you chaps of how he had to apologize for old Monty cuz of Monty's prissy prima donna ways and not being a man about it and doing it himself.
I do like the picture of Winston Churchill holding the SMG also.
As far as 9/11 is concerned, I don't believe any of you were ever over here when those planes struck our buildings, the Pentagon, or hit the ground in Pennsylvania so it wouldn't hit anymore buildings, like it was meant to do, according to the so-called terrorists.
The next thing I'll be addressing is where the planning took place for 9/11. It was planned in Germany and yes, right there in London where you all happen to say nothing ever goes wrong. EHHHHH!!!!! Wrong again! That's where the planning stages took place at, in Munich, and London.
As for Bush, this is my favorite part. You say he was looking for a fight? Let me pose you all a question: If a group of terrorists had just taken out the House of Commons, and Parliament, and was attempting to take out the Queen also, would you after it was all over, be looking for a fight, or are you that passive to the point where you have nothing left to fight for any longer? Would you really just stand there and be shot by the invading enemy, if it ever came down to it?
You see, I fought during the Vietnam War, I am a Marine(Ret.), and am proud of it. Are you not proud enough of your country to stand up for it if it ever came down to it?
The reason the French are the way they are, is because they have already forgotten who it was liberated them from ever having to learn how to speak German after WWII. I believe that it was the United States and the U.K. together. (not forgetting the Russian Allies either!)
Think about long and hard. If you are really that passive and willing to give up your country to another foreign invading country, what is your real purpose for living there then?
I am just someone who is curious, is all. A lot of soldiers fought for our Freedoms, can you say the same thing about your country, or are you on the same bandwagon as the Communist left-wingers who don't really care unless the stuff really hits the fan and they're right in the middle of the path?
Oh, and to correct you about fighting ONLY THEN, that's not true. Back in 1993 when the WTC trade towers were bombed the first time in the basement by bin Laden and the Sheik, we wanted bin Laden then also. But Clinton was too busy with his office problems instead of doing his job, like a President is supposed to do. Back then, Clinton let Gollywood Halfwits stay in the Lincoln Bedroom for a hefty couple thousand a night...
...i'd just yawn too but i think the poor chap has a bit of a problem, i shall endeavour to rectify that problem.
...your problem, sir, is that you have mixed fact with fiction. Listen carefully, you and anyone thinking the same way as you need to change.
"...right there in London where you all happen to say nothing ever goes wrong."
Point one) No-one worth their salt pretends that there are not problems here, we know there are (IRA, part spam-funded). If we were ignorant of there being a problem we would not have the terrorism drills we do.
"As for Bush, this is my favorite part. You say he was looking for a fight? Let me pose you all a question: If a group of terrorists had just taken out the House of Commons, and Parliament, and was attempting to take out the Queen also, would you after it was all over, be looking for a fight, or are you that passive to the point where you have nothing left to fight for any longer?"
Point two) I hope that if our country sustained an attack of as great a gravity as the twin-towers our government would seek-out and correct the problem. I expect that our country would do so in accordance with the UN and not act unlawfully...i at least understand that we should set an example.
We would not be passive, we would act...but unlike monkey-puppet bush we would, i hope, attack a relevant country. Saddam's only link with Al Quaida is that they hated each-other. One was a religous-fundamentalist group and the other had no religous agendas. THINK DAMMIT! Attack-yes, but get the right country!
"You see, I fought during the Vietnam War, I am a Marine(Ret.), and am proud of it."
Point three) Perhaps you are used to attacking countries without good-reason and having a vague disregard for civilian-life but this does not make it acceptble, let alone just. Perhaps the stress simply addled your brain.
"Think about long and hard. If you are really that passive and willing to give up your country to another foreign invading country, what is your real purpose for living there then?"
Point four) Think again cowboy, Al Quaida never tried to invade you. (...and Saddam never even attacked)
"Back in 1993 when the WTC trade towers were bombed the first time in the basement by bin Laden and the Sheik, we wanted bin Laden then also"
Point five) Fine, i know you want Bin Laden (spell your names with a capital), but guess what? He dosen't live in Iraq. He has nothing to do with Iraq. He was born in Saudi Arabia like many other terrorists, except you and your almighty intelligence agency didn't tell you that did they?
Now, think, if a young-chap unheard of in society call tell you this then just HOW much do you trust US intelligence?
...in summary, just stop from the hectic stream of words issuing from your mouth, pause, think. Take stock of things and the make a decent decision!
P.S. I'm not THAT worried about the terrorism in the UK, i'm sure that your empire, yes empire, will try to anhaillate it with invasion...miss...and wind up frozen in the Alps.
To correct your statement as far as Vietnam was concerned, we didn't start it. The French started it, asked for our help, after getting scared they were going to get wasted in there. This was in the '50s. Facts is what you wanted. We went in to help them out, they up and pulled out afterwards.
Yes, I did say nothing ever goes wrong in London, that's my fault, God only knows I wish it weren't true. Same with the States, or anywhere in the world for that matter, but what hope of ever achieving a dream like that, short of The Second Coming?
Yes, you are right. I believe we should have gone into where the problems lie as of today. Saudi Arabia, Iran, yes even Iraq when Saddam was in power(at least there are no more raperooms!). Saddam was a follower of Arabian countries, with a hint of making people think he was a good guy.
Saudi Arabia is one of the main countries where the principles of of right-wing muslim fundamentalism is taught, even to this very day--that means it's the stepping stone for terrorists groups such as al Qaeda, and so forth.
I also believe that the government of Israel has been doing a lot of back-stabbing with other Middle Eastern countries, since a few Israeli government people work with "special envoys" from Saudi Arabia. Syria has been doing a lot of work in the terrorist business also, since they do back Hezbollah. (Using one hand to gesture, while looking away and giving with the other)
It's really too bad the "True Nation of Israel" isn't in power yet.
As far as "our empire" freezing in any Alps, I highly doubt it. As far as your "empire" or shall we say "monarchy", it seems to be waning quite badly as of late. Actually, your country should have no real need for a queen any longer, because it seems that after reading a lot of the posts all over the board, there is no need for power. It's just a jumbled mess, just like you say it is over here.
I really like our chats. Thank you for the messages.
Pity about the Empire-thing, we are perhaps too modest and tried to rid ourselves of the colonies too fast.
I seem to recall a quite troublesome little colony somewhere to the west of here, 'America' i believe they call it.
Nasty war a bit-ago, some of them became terrorists. Bloody terrorists, if only someone had had the idea of crushing them earlier we wouldn't have the USA.
This bunch of unscrupulous terrorists ran with the idea of "no taxation without representation", quite comical really as taxing people without representation still goes on now...even after the terrorists persuaded us to leave.
P.S: Don't worry about the mix-up, you might get the right country next-time!