Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: CBC archives... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:34:39 01/09/05 Sun Churchill - the greatest man the world has ever seen: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-149-778-21/unforgettable_moments/conflict_war/churchill_chicken appears to have given de Gaulle a chip on the shoulder for some reason... http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-236-1132-21/unforgettable_moments/politics_economy/vive_quebec_libre :0) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: e.ee, | |
|
Author: ehe [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:29:33 01/10/05 Mon "Churchill - the greatest man the world has ever seen" Who threatened to machine gun unarmed striking miners, and used drugs. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:29:42 01/10/05 Mon saved the world from the nazis. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Criterion | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:52:47 01/10/05 Mon If people refuse to work for an honest wage and instead march upon the capital with the intention of overthrowing our democracy the use of the machine gun is entirely appropriate. He was also an alcoholic and in the 1950s was semi-ga-ga while he was P.M. I tend to judge a man on whether he takes the choice that is right when it most matters. In the speech above deliveres in the middle of the war, pre-Alemein, he is unrepentant about making the right choice. HE saved the WORLD from the axis powers by standing up to them even in 1940 when it looked as though the situation was hopeless. There would have been no hope of European liberation later on in the war if he had taken the easy path and signed a peace-deal with the Facists in 1940. That is why he is remembered as the greatest figure the world has ever seen. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: If the Germans can be grateful to Churchill for their democracy, why can't we? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:53:31 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I was flicking through the CBC archives when... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:41:27 01/10/05 Mon I came across an interview in the Memorable Moments section (the “just watch me” clip) with the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was accosted by journalists in the seventies during a hostage crises. I was not aware of this incident before, as it was before my time. The interview was superb, and is a lesson for all politicians in dealing with lily-livered journalists. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Churchill sucked | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:42:46 01/13/05 Thu Churchill was personally responsible for the Gallipoli disaster, as first sea lord he ignored all strategic advice and pushed forth with a naval operation, it failed then he began a land operation, it failed, hundreds of thousands dead. He may have stood up for his own country against the nazis (not the world, USA did that, besdies only europe and africa were threatened), however he did no such thing against the Japanese. He never took the Defence of Singapore seriously, and when Japanese were bombing Australia and submarines getting in our harbours he still wouldnt release Aus troops from servive in Africa to defend their own country. Winston Churchill was no hero, he was a terrible leader of military operations, and a pigheaded and alcoholic leader of a nation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: yeah, yeah. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:17:59 01/13/05 Thu 'not the world, USA did that, besdies only europe and africa were threatened' Rubbish. So Hitler had no interest in dominating anywhere outside Europe and Africa, didn't he? And so the world would have been fine if 'only' Europe and Africa had become Nazi? Talk about insularity. And it is also a ridiculous re-writing of history to say that Britain didn't stand up for the world and the 'USA did that'. Crap. The British Empire was struggling to defend itself globally while fighting the Nazis in Europe and Africa. It was a classic case of overstretch, but that doesn't mean Britain made no attempt to defend the rest of the world or somehow was only acting in its own or 'Europe's' interest. Bollocks revisionism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: What did Churchill suck? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:34:12 01/13/05 Thu I think you'll find that Britain, Canada, Australia and NZ joined the war when other countries were threatened and invaded: Poland, Belgium, France, Scandinavia, all that mob. On the other hand, the Americans didn't join until they were actually attacked. This, of course, is their prerogative and they can not seriously be criticised for wanting to stay out of other people's conflicts so soon after WWI. On the other hand, it does make it a bit rich to suggest that Churchill's Britain was only interested in Britain and not the destruction of national socialist tyranny. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Go back to the cricket, mate - you've been sold the anti-Brit myth | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:53:41 01/13/05 Thu Churchill stood up to Hitler when the rest of the world was quietly throwing in the towel. The man is certainly a hero of mine. I still get shivers when I read some of his great WWII speeches. When you say he "stood up for his own country", you have to remember that his country was the British Empire. Australia's own leaders were prepared to pull back to the Brisbane line and abandon the people in the northern half of the continent, so we can hardly claim the Churchill is the only one who felt the need to focus attention on one area. He tried to keep us all together, but Britain was ultimately so weakened by the war that even the core nations of the Empire drifted apart. I would like to reverse that and see us drift back together. There is no reason for ANZACS, Brits and Canucks to treat each other as foreigners: we are family. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: South Africa joined the war at the start also | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:19 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Churchill approved of SA concentration camps. nt | |
|
Author: Winnie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:03:24 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Did he approve of the disease and deprivation, or just of the principle of detainment? A key issue, I think. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:07:20 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Churchill did stand for the world... | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:33:12 01/13/05 Thu I believe that we can all agree that Winston Churchill's military mind was ineffective at best, highly delustional at worst. However, the defense of Singapore was really not his fault. The actual design of the defenses of the port were outdated and couldn't even accomadate Britains largest Battleships/etc. Also, while Britain lost two battleships defending Singapore, it is important to point out that the original task force planned included an aircraft carrier, which very well may have prevented such a one sided outcome. However, the carrier broke down, and rather than wait for repairs, the fleet sailed for singapore and was sunk by the Japanese air force...it wasn't entirely Churchill's fault, just a combination of bad luck and the simple fact that the Royal Navy didnt have the resources to fight a World War. As for standing up to Hitler, Churchill did indeed stand for the world. Remember, if he makes peace and accepts Nazi domination of Europe, U-boats stop sinking American shipping and FDR has no way to persuade the USA into fighting Nazi Germany. Indeed, the US would have probably used Nazi Europe as a defense against Soviet aggression. So we can come to the conclusion that Winston Churchill was indeed a great man, he stood against Nazi Germany even when he realized victory would most likely mean the end of the British Empire, However he had many shortcoming, predominantly his terrible judgement in military affairs. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Churchill's Book | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:04:55 01/14/05 Fri I have just purchased Churhill's six volume "The Second World War" for 9.99 from the Folio Society - bargain! http://www.foliosoc.co.uk/offers/details.php?OfferCode=5Z37 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: But.... | |
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:16:35 01/13/05 Thu Churchill was a great man in many ways. But some of his views certainly put me off him sometimes. What was it he said about Indians....they are beastly people with a beastly religion...something to that effect [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: granted - I can't claim to admire everything about him | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:29:43 01/13/05 Thu I can't even claim to admire everything about myself, and I have at least some control over that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Churchil was a great man - a great war leader, but he was wrong in opposing Indian independence | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:30 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Indian self-government, anyway. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:05:54 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Talking about Indian Independence | |
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:18:01 01/13/05 Thu This is a bit of a thorny issue, but I personally think that had the British been more accomadating of the Oxbridge educated Indian men,(and dropped the racism) like Gandhi), who actually supported the ideals of Britain, rule of law, democracy, free spech etc etc, then I think India would have probably had self-government, instead of independece. The fact that the British backed off the Ilbert Bill and other measures which would have allowed Indians to be properly engaged in the governance of India things would have been different. I was reading something couple of months ago which talked of how when Queen Victoria died, a delegation of Indians came to London and requested to pay respects to what they rightfully called 'our empress'-but they were denied that request. I know for a fact that were many Indians who held Britain close to their hearts, but things happened which changed that. Can you imagine what could have been! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Racism is always a tragic error - enormously destructive, in this case | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:31 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The British upper class discriminated against anyone who they considered to be 'beneath' them | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:28:43 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That commit generalises to a gross extent | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:52 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: EDIT: That comment generalises to a gross extent | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:43:20 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's how it was in pre-war Britain and the Empire. British middle class administrators were far more accommodating | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:40:13 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not a very helpful generalisation | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:12:40 01/14/05 Fri I think this is a C20th class-ist prejudice that you're going to have to support with a bit more evidence, Jim. I can see room for a bit of legitimacy in what you're saying, but I don't really think you're coming at things from the right angle. The British Empire was hierarchical. I think that's about the extent of it. Hierarchy has its good points and bad points. Race did not prevent one from being recognised as being of the 'ruling class' and therefore being respected. But society was run by an elite along 'elitist' lines, and in many ways was the better for it. There were upper class administrators who were very much against racism, or even a rigid social hierarchy, and there were middle class administrators who were fiercely racist. I don't think making a distinction is particularly helpful. At best it's grossly simplistic. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are probably right, but this is what I was taught in Canadian schools. Thanks for the enlightenment. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:44 01/14/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:36:37 01/14/05 Fri The snag with your theory, Mr Singh, is that we tried that in Africa. In Africa, we abandonned our policy of working through the traditional but modernised elites in favour of the lucky few who had been educated at the LSE in the 1930s, and they invariably turned into Marxist dictators. Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Nasser, all that mob, and we have never been forgiven for turning Africa over to an intellectual elite who thought that They Knew Best how to run their countries, and who therefore had little time for popular opinion. In India, on the other hand, we completely marginalised the lucky few, and instead chose to work through the Rajas and Maharanas and all the traditional hierarchy of Indian society, and we have never been forgiven for thwarting the legitimate claims of educated Indians to the right to rule their own country. One of the troubles with imperialism is that the imperial power can never win. The Americans are currently discovering this for themselves. They were castigated for not removing Saddam Hussein in 1991, and now they are castigated for starting a war to remove him. Going further back to the 1960s, the hippies used to demonstrate against the government for refusing to take a stand against marxist dictators in South America, and then trying to topple marxist rule in Vietnam. Mind you, that was our fault: if we hadn't done so well in the Malayan Crisis they never would have tried! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indian Empire | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:46:17 01/14/05 Fri I think there are two issues here. One is the nature of British power in India, which was quite different from Arfica, in that it was built largely with the co-operation of the Princes and direct British sovereignty only extended over about 1/3 of the continent and even then only after the British government ousted the East India Company which had been the driving force behind the Empire and which had had no desire to govern India. The second issue is timing. If British India had taken a different path after the Empire was proclaimed in 1877 and acted on the better intentions of those who had argued for direct Crown government to better the lot of the ordinary Indian, then the Marxists of the 1930s might have had a lot less success in recruiting Indian intellectuals or gaining the support of the masses. The African empire was built too late in Imperial history terms to be given a fair chance of establishing a true and loyal anglified elite. I still doubt that things would have ended up much differently, though, because the Empire as a whole was too entrenched in racist philosophy by the early C20th and the World Wars would still have fatally undermined British power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's ironic then... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:08:35 01/14/05 Fri "the Empire as a whole was too entrenched in racist philosophy by the early C20th and the World Wars would still have fatally undermined British power." It's ironic then that Britain sacrificed her empire in order to save a race from extermination. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not quite the thing. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:37:46 01/14/05 Fri It is ironic, but then the type of racism favoured in Britain in 1900 didn't involve gas chambers or the imposition of jack-boot ideology. The average Briton would probably have felt that the average Indian wasn't really ready to govern himself, because he was an unwashed heathen and clearly, since he wore nappies and lived in a hut, was a bit on the simple side. Just as one wouldn't really want one's servant to read 'Lady Shat-terleys Lover', or one's dippy wife to stand for parliament. However, that didn't give one the right to go round murdering one's servants or chaining women to railings. That sort of nonsense just wasn't done by Englishmen. Not quite the thing, you see. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Aye | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:32:36 01/13/05 Thu He didn't like Australians much either, to be fair, and was probably one of the first real Amerophiles (if there is such a word?) in the Tory leadership. I must admit I find him a very flawed character - but a man of huge historical importance and genius none-the-less. How many geniuses weren't flawed characters, afterall? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I've posted an article on Churchill by an Indian writer on the News server | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:08:32 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I can't seem to find it! | |
|
Author: G.Singh [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:22:44 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Members News is near the top fo the INternational WEbsite's Homepage - you might need to refresh the page. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:33:08 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: i have not been sold the 'anti-brit myth' | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:20:55 01/24/05 Mon i have just formed the correct conclusion that Churchill, whilst a great speech maker, and great at campaigning for better pay for navy enlisted, was a horrible military leader. One of the most overated men in history. And he sold Australia out, there is a reason that most of the rupublican's historical arguments for an Aus republic involve his back stabbing, i am a monarchist, but when a republican says that stuff to me there is no reply, cause Churchill was a moron. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Almost right. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:55:02 01/24/05 Mon Churchill was indeed lousy at more or less everything except boosting morale and keeping the Yanks on-side. These things were, of course, absolutely necessary between 1939 and 1945, but I think it is a reflection of how much we thought of him as a peacetime PM that we booted him out as soon as possible after VE Day. Great war leader, yes; Man of the Century, no. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Man of the Century, yes. | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:19:29 01/24/05 Mon Churchill was the most important, greatest political figure of the 20th century. Although let's get a couple of things straight here: No figure had a greater affect in world politics than Hitler (who here disagrees?); No figure helped us more against Hitler than Stalin who threw 27 million Russian lives against him (albeit, all for the wrong reasons); And no figure helped us more for the right reasons than Roosevelt (although any American leader would have post Dec 7, 1941). And I'm sorry, but the combined British Imperial Services did not come halfway to America's 30 million men (or whatever the real figure) in uniform; But who, prey tell, led us when it mattered, when the chips were down (I mean in a big friggin way), whose back was against the wall, who inspired us during the greatest calamity against freedom ever, when we (the Empire) were all alone in the world. Our survival against tyranny was won more because of the decisions of 1939, than the actions and resources of 1944. It's more than a bit lame to say that Churchill was the "greatest figure in the history of the world" (what, you mean greater than Jesus Christ?), but he was inarguably the single greatest figure of the 20th century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: No | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:15:08 01/25/05 Tue when the chips were down for Australia, when we (Australia and New Zealand) were all alone, Churchill sold us out. He may have saved Britain, but he damn near lost the ANZAC nations. God bless America and god bless Roosevelt. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Bravo | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:16:48 01/25/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: When the chips were down, the chips were down FOR ALL OF US. | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:34:38 01/25/05 Tue The difference between us is that I take the larger view, Aussie. Perhaps historically it's easier for a Canadian to do this, since in 1939 it was my good fortune and perspective to live right next door to America flanked on either side by oceans against tyranny, unlike that of Australia or Britain. Nobody sold Australia out. Do you think the Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, French, Danes and Benelux countries forever whine to us because "we sold them out" in our failure to defend them. The Czechs are the only ones that can legitimately say that they were sold out by the Brits to ensure Britain received "Peace in our time". Australia doesn't have one freakin shred of credibility to back up this preposterous claim, a claim that it doesn't make (because of its decency and self-respect) were it not for the pathetic and unmanly clamourings of people like yourself. What, you thought he should have just ignored Europe and sent the whole friggin fleet to save Australia at the expense of Europe? You're a bloody sorry example of courage under fire, man. Churchill's leadership saved not only Britain, but saved Europe, Africa and the Middle East (ensured there would be an Israel at least). What he did not and could not save was the British Commonwealth Empire, the very thing Aussie purports to claim screwed Australia in its time of need. But as history shows, other nations had a greater need at the time. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I believe you are all right | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:53:10 01/25/05 Tue I think that Roosevelt and Chruchhill both deserve recognition for their actions in one of the worlds darkest hours. But a man of the century, that has had a huge impact might actually be one of these two men: Bill Gates - Founder of Microsoft Ray A. Kroc - Founder of McDonalds These men shaped the new world in which we live in today. Any thoughts? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: And Tim Berners Lee... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:48:14 01/25/05 Tue A Brit, without whom we would not be having this conversation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: aw I thought that was Al Gore..... | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:41:24 01/25/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Al Gore? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:29:16 01/25/05 Tue Sorry Kev - that one has gone over my head... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: What about John Baird? The Brit who invented television | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:56:15 01/25/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Bill Gates is widely dispised around the internet. ;) | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:16:40 01/25/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: learn some history M.J. Smith | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:04:48 01/26/05 Wed We did send forces to help out the Europeans, so that was all we could. But when over 200 bombings were carried out agaainst Australia cities and towns in our north, when ships were being torpedoed in Sydney Harbour, when jap subs were firing shells into the suburbs of Newcastle, when jap recon seaplanes were flying over all of our major cities, when the japs had taken over Australia territories of New Guinea and elsewhere, where Australian were living, then I think we were in as big of a need as Europe. And i didnt expect for all of Britains forces to pull out of europe to be sent to help us, but i did expect Churchill to have the decency to realease australia's own divisions of soldiers to take back Australia's own territory and defend the Australian mainland. Its not unreasonable that we prefer our own soldiers to defend our own shores rather than having them fight another poorly planned operation where they are used as MG fodder in Greece and Crete. But Churchills reliance on the poor 'stronghold' (and i use that term very loosely) of Singapore was attroucios, it was as quoted by an Aussie officer "an iron cage from which there is no escape", probably all the forces in the pacific couldnt have saved it, but Churchill should have known that, Australia's PM wrote to him saying that if he did not get serious about defences in SE Asia then if Japan entered the invasion would get all the way to New Guinea. I know others were in need, and when they were Australia sent all it could, we did our bit for everybody in britain. europe, the med, Nth Africa and the middle east, yet Churchill tried to stop us from for once sticking up for ourselves when we needed help. Australia has every right to look back at Churchill with disgust, he was horrible for Australia, in WW1 and as PM in WW2 he was attrocious. So dont have a go at me for stating the facts, because as a canadian who is protected by 2 oceans, ice, and the USA, you obviously have no idea how close Japan came to being rulers of Down Under, and you obviously do not know what Churchill did to try stop us from calling our forces from europe to the pacific. So please do not say that tripe again, you clearly have no clue. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: OK Aussie, we agree to disagree...no hard feelings, mate. | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:38:43 01/26/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: i can agree to that | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:48:42 01/27/05 Thu i can agree to disagree, no hard feelings, my only gripe is that Australia is just as important as any country in Europe, and we were in just as much danger. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: oops | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:41:40 01/26/05 Wed Oh sorry about not explaining my joke. At times I forget that people don't get the same new I do. Anyway, back during hte Clinton administration, someone was interviewing Al Gore, the vice president, and he blurted out that he was responsible for inventing the internet. The media blew it out of proportion and the conservatives had a good laugh [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |