Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy the British should hate American's

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why the British should hate American's
    Posted: 08-Feb-2011 at 21:32
This is all a pointless argument. Almost all Americans were originally British, but as the British decided to treat them like they weren't British they revolted. So in truth everyones the bad guy.
As to WWII without the Americans there would be no Britians, and if it wasn't for the Britians the Americans would have been terribly outflanked and would have been beat.
 
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!
 
Back to Top
Van_Möck View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 20-May-2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2011 at 11:30
Maybe it helps some of you see these matters in a more relaxed way if I say that if I, as a (half-)German, were to adjust my personal animosities to my countries history, I would be busy all day.
LOL 

Edited by Van_Möck - 08-Feb-2011 at 11:30
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2011 at 09:42
I was just thinking, how about this being the other way around.  Like, when is the UK going to appoligize for burning Washington DC?  The Whitehouse etc.  Let's examine why the US should hate Britain. 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2011 at 21:58
Thanks to our "Prodigal", Son!!!

Sort of hits one in the bollocks does it not?

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Prodigal View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Feb-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2011 at 14:40

By contrast he strongly praises US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger and the Pengtagon.  "Weinberger was splendid from the outset.  Ignoring the jealousies and rivalries in Washington, he ordered his staff to give maximum and urgent support to the British.  We needed additional fuel supplies in Ascension, which the Americans supplied with their tankers.  Valuable weapons, in particular the Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, supplemented and upgraded the capability of the Harriers, and a host of other incremental stores were all forthcoming without cost ever being mentioned."

British Defence Secretary Sir John Nott
 
BTW Weinberger was knighted because of:
  • Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1988, awarded in recognition for an "outstanding and invaluable" contribution to military cooperation between the UK and the US, particularly during the Falklands War of 1982.
  • The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.

    The United States provided everything except for manpower. The American base at Ascension Island (ironically, leased from the British) was now the closest one to the combat zone, albeit still 3,800 miles away. Weinberger took steps to cut through the “infamous” Pentagon bureaucracy and deliver materiel to the British as quickly as possible, reducing the usual procurement time of six weeks to about twenty-four hours, with some even arriving within six hours of the initial request. He gives an account of the weapons and equipment being delivered:

    The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces’ ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “bargain basement” price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands).[14]

    The Sidewinders certainly were state-of-the-art; as one of the first all-aspect air-to-air missiles in the world, it allowed RAF pilots to shoot down Argentine planes from any angle in the sky. Between 1 May and 23 June, 27 Sidewinders were launched. 24 hit their targets.[15] No longer were the British confined to trailing behind enemy fighters.

    As for the overall strategic picture, Anderson invokes the grim specter of a South Atlantic winter. “Without American logistic support, most of which was channeled through Ascension Island, the operation would have taken much longer, and would undoubtedly have been compromised by the onset of the southern winter.” Getting to Ascension in the first place would have been impossible without the 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel provided by the Pentagon.[16] Between the logistic, aviation, and intelligence requirements of British forces, the case is clearly weighted towards a decisive American contribution. It was significant in the sense that without the support, the British effort would have taken far longer, suffered many more casualties, and possibly affected Prime Minister Thatcher’s government in the UK general election.

    Lets follow this up from AN address from the Iron Lady herself:
     
    Margaret Thatcher’s address to the Conservative Party in October 1982.

    But regardless of the consequences – or rather, because of them – the American tilt towards supporting Great Britain in the Falklands War came as a shock to Britain, the OAS, and indeed most of the world. The materiel, bases, and intelligence provided were invaluable in bringing the war to a swift end without an excess of casualties. The American position in the Falklands was most certainly significant, and to a large extent surprising. But perhaps the most startling aspect of this is that the support should have come as a surprise to anyone. It was just the newest incarnation of the 200 year-old special relationship.


    Back to Top
    Prodigal View Drop Down
    Immortal Guard
    Immortal Guard


    Joined: 05-Feb-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 5
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2011 at 14:14
    Originally posted by mynoon

     
    The EU gives aid as a government would. Also the EU is a political union not an economic one.
     
     
    Not Economic??? We can't discuss this anymore. When you make statements like this I just lose the ability to give you any credibilty at all. There is a political aspect to the EU but it is first and formost an economic union
     
    From the EU website:
     
    The Treaty on European Union:
     

     The Union shall set itself the following objectives:

    • to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
    • to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17,
    • to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union ,
    • to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime,
    • to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community.
    • The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
    Article 2 – The Treaty establishing the European Community
     The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 4, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.

    Remarks on the Articles: 

    Non-inflationary growth means that rises in the level of wages and prices must not occur at the expense of a fall in real purchasing power.

    Convergence of economic performance means that the EU must endeavour to achieve consistency between the economic performances of the Member States

     
     
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2011 at 21:23
    As a matter of fact, I did not know anything at all worthwile concerning any German V. England warfare concerning any mostly worthless islands in the S. Atlantic!

    And, did the defence or loss of these poor islands, do anything that affected the end of WW-!?

    And, I really think that you really do not understand the intelligence sent from the USA to GB, did not help you defend these "sheep heards" from the Argentine!

    Now, as to the importance of these piss-ant islands in todays world, it is, and will be always of little importance!

    In fact, the UK's defense of this area was more a matter of "pride" than of any significance in the worlds opinion, or political environment, etc.!

    Pray tell if you know more of the significance of both of these encounters as they affected or effected the reast of history?
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2011 at 20:07
    Do you even know when the first falklands war was. It was in 1914 when the Germans tryed to take the Falkland, there was 2 naval battles the Germans won the first battle sinking 0 british ships, the second battle the British won sinking or capturing 6 German ship out of 8. The USA did not help Britain in the first Falklands war. 
     
    UK in the second Falklands war did not need bullets, but helicopters did the USA send them no, I am not even sure of we got bullets from the USA. I know the USA refueled UK ships but it was our fuel and we had to pay the USA $500,000 for their help. Also the UK did need help with logistics but we had no money to pay the USA with so you did not help the UK apart from the refueling. 
     
    When the UK government says it's happy with the EU when the EU is doing or not happy when it's doing bad. It's just politics, like on the USA news if the war in afghanistan is going well they say USA troops won, But if is going bad they say ISAF troops lost. 
     
    The EU gives aid as a government would. Also the EU is a political union not an economic one.
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2011 at 19:16
    Ok then the USA may give more money but not more food or material aid. The EU gives to places the USA can't like north Korea/Iran. Also alot of the USA governments aid goes to the militaries of other nation. It's about where the aid goes not how much you send. That's why i did not really want to argue with you about who gives the most aid. You can't calculate how effective the aid has been, over history the USA and UK have given the most aid which do you think has been more effective, see you can't decide.

    Edited by mynoon - 05-Feb-2011 at 19:36
    Back to Top
    Prodigal View Drop Down
    Immortal Guard
    Immortal Guard


    Joined: 05-Feb-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 5
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2011 at 12:59
    Actually the US provided quite a bit of Aid to the UK in the first Falkland war. Britian could not have projected power with out US logistical support. One of the biggest ways the US helped was to provide ordnance to be exact 7.62 bullets for Machine guns. The UK was sorley short of bullets and other small arms to carry on any sort of war. The US also provided fuel and other litoral support.
     
    My next question is how come when the EU does something well GB is all ready to part of it, but when they are not they are quick to point out they are not in the monetary union.
     
    BTW in terms of support for the UN and F Aid the US is the greatest single contribe..The EU is not a nation so it is not accurate to use combined EU figures. If you want to talk apples to apples comapre the US (a single sov nation) to France or germany (a single sov nation). Once again last I knew the EU was not a country but an Economic Union.


    Edited by Prodigal - 05-Feb-2011 at 13:07
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2011 at 19:53
    Originally posted by mynoon

    The EU member states give around 70,500,000,000 Billion + 8 billion from the EU. My source is http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance  and my numbers are for 2009.


    Well mynoon, I surveyed the site you gave, and I did not see the figures you showed above, but I am not saying they do not exist within this large report!

    However, I did find this which might well be an update from my previous post?

    "The Center for Global Prosperity, from the Hudson Institute, (whose director is Adelman) published its first Index of Global Philanthropy in 2006, which contained updated numbers from those stated above. The total of US private giving, since Adelman’s previous report, had increased to a massive $71 billion in 2004. Page 16 of their report breaks it down as follows:

    •International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
    •Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
    •American NGOs: $9.7
    •Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
    •US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
    •Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.
    While the majority of the increase was personal remittances ($18 bn in 2000 to $47 bn in 2004), other areas have also seen increases."

    So, if the above figures are OK with you, which they should be since you gave me the sites address, then it seems just "Private giving", by the USA totaled "a massive $71 billion in 2004."

    It seems that you quoted but $70.5 billion for the total of the aid given by the EU?, plus an additional $8.0 billion for a total of $78.5 billion!

    Please correct me if I am not correct?

    Thus, if we consider that offical US governmental AID, still totaled somewhere near the $13.0 billion mark, then the total aid given by the USA would total about $84.0 billion in 2004!

    Which just happens to be a tad more than the $78.5 billion reported as credited to the EU nations and private organizations!

    Perhaps I am still correct?

    Regards,




    Edited by opuslola - 04-Feb-2011 at 19:55
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2011 at 17:49
    The EU member states give around 70,500,000,000 Billion + 8 billion from the EU. My source is http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance  and my numbers are for 2009.
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2011 at 16:44
    But, the numbers you use above are official Government programs, and do not include private giving by the USA citizens, etc.! If these are considered, and they dwarf private contributions by other nations citizens, then there are some new numbers!

    "Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation typically through the charity of individual people and organizations can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

    •International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
    •Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
    •American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
    •Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
    •US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
    •Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
    •Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002."

    Add the 12B-14B in official governmental USA aid, to the (at least) 34 B, given by the above private American institutions, and the total rises to about 47 Billion Dollars US!

    I would doubt that figures anyway near that can be contrived from the EU?

    Of maybe you have the figures to dispute it?

    Regards,
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2011 at 07:00
    Just be clear the American people voted him in so it's your own fault, he's worse than Bush.
     
    European socialisum can work Germany and France prove that and the USA would work better under that system and with a lower jail population. Also the USA needs more men in it's army so send the people who are in jail to afghanistan.
     
    Yes labour were crap for Britain they made the red tape worse and followed the USA into every war. But we now have a much better conservative goverment who will sort it out.
     
    Now i know why the UN is crap because the USA controls it, The EU gives more aid to the world than the USA, fact so the USA does not give the most food aid. With this new infomation i can't  reconsider my last post
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 20:28
    Mynoon, it doesn't help if our own leadership (Obama, et. al.) wants America to assume a third world status!

    Perhaps the last elections will stem the tide of Socialism/Progressivism that fills the halls of the White House today?

    Perhaps GB has already seen the future?

    By the way, since the USA pays about 75% if the UN's budget, and gives away more food than any other ten nations combined, then you might want to reconsider your post?

    Regards,

    Edited by opuslola - 03-Feb-2011 at 20:31
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 19:16
    I will wait and see if the EU takes it's rightfull place as the new hyperpower or if China is crushed by the USA and it's allies or if China out grows the USA and the Indians and Russians help China beat you. The USA could still but ownly if the EU is on it's side from the start.
     
    I agree your empire was more benevolent than that of Britain but it's not anymore in the last 10 years the USA has overtaken Britain into 6th place on which nation has killed the most people directly or indirectly. Nobody owes a debt gratitude to the USA because you have used them for your own gain like the British did put you have give little back the British gave all they could.
     
    I am not ignorant of the past I know we could not have won WW2 without the USA or taken down the USSR but in doing so you wrecked you political reputation all around the world. It's your own stupied fault that your empire is falling after just 20 years as the hyperpower. The main reason that you are falling is because you act like an empire but you want and say you are a republic make your minds up and you may not fall so far.


    Edited by mynoon - 03-Feb-2011 at 19:19
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 18:07
    The "End of our Power?"

    Perhaps we should wait a few years?

    Our empire was more benevolent than that of Britain! Unless one is an Islamists, then most people on this planet still feel that they owe a debt of gratitude to America!

    Excuse me, that is unless one is less than age 35 or so! And, as such, totally ignorant, for the most part!

    I am of course excluding you, no matter your age!

    Regards,
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 17:58
    Sorry throne.
     
    If you know anything about British empire history you will know that the empire got bigger and better after the USA stole all that land. The Germans and then Russians all payed and so did France. Britain payed off it's debts just slow. British empire payed off the ww1 debt in 15 years. The USA came it to ww1 because they want that money back. Yes i know the Scotish helped the French thats why England started attacking Scotland, Wales is not a nation it was spilt in 2 England took out the Bottom part and then rest, Ireland war taken Because they poeple who owned Southern Wales moved and took most of Ireland.
     
    So the desert rats were Indian slaves hahaha. The Scotish held the line so more men could get out of dunkirk, Irland did not help Britain in ww2.
     
    The empire is something to be proud off it made 4 great nations USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand. Spread Europe values all over the world the values of common law, democracy, land ownership. Also capitalisum, many new ways of killing disease and nw ways of growing things and building things. The British have give far more to the world than anyother empire or nation. Also all the bad things we did in Africa were their own leader fault and in north American France and Spain started it befor we did. And you do know that india attacked Britain and we fought back and won. Yes famines in India were made worse by the British killing 35 million people But British technology saved 80 million Indians. Yes Britain changed the India economy to make more money for Britain but it was their own fault they attacked Britain.
     
    Thanks for calling me a red coat the army that made the biggest empire ever and a lime because we but limes in out ships so we could be at sea longer and made the best navy in the world at one point. So now i must call you yank or something like that you may thing but no it will call you. AMERICAN SCUM! 
     
    Don't even try and say the British were really bad to American's because we both know it's bull. the American's were treated the same as any english man. but did we go and want independence no we stook with it and one day we got what we wanted you on the other hand still have not got want you wanted. infact you have became a new British empire. How does it fell to be part of the most powerfull nation on earth at the end of it power over everybody else.
    Back to Top
    opuslola View Drop Down
    Tsar
    Tsar
    Avatar
    suspended

    Joined: 23-Sep-2009
    Location: Long Beach, MS,
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 4620
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 16:50
    You seem to have "thrown" me for a loop, in your last post!

    Of course I understood you meant the Great Empire, that has been lost over the centuries, and especially since 1776, etc.! It seems that when it comes to the WW-II debt, it is only GB, and Holland who ever took the effort to repay it! But, what the hay!

    You guys never paid the WW-I debt!, and then you blame us for not wanting to get involved in a war amongst "cousins!" Hell, the bloody Scots provided France its best and brightest in most all of the wars fought between England and France, etc.! And, England merely boxed in Wales and Ireland for centuries!

    In WW-II, it seems that a lot of your most famous units were former "convicts" (Australia), slaves (Indians, and Africans), and other extreem nationalists like the Scots, and the Irish, etc.!

    You mention the "Empire" as something to be proud of! I can think of very few things England did, during its Empire era, to be proud of!

    In India, for example, England built a wall across the entire continent, in an effort to control the "Salt!", and the taxes derived thereof! The Roman English built a wall across its Northern border to isolate the Scots, they blockaded Ireland, etc., etc.!

    Do you understand "B'wanna?", "Sahid?", "my lord?", etc.?

    I am sure that the words of address, that I mentioned above including "B'wanna", and "Sahid", are movie terms that I learned early in life, and may not be either correct or proper! But, proper Englishmen did expect that those underlings that they ruled did address them in a "proper" manner!

    Perhaps you can present me with some real examples? I just don't think that "Red-Coat" or "Limey", is respectful enough?

    By the way, a part of my family actually fled Virgina because of the abusive rules of the Church of England, as well as the Crown!

    Edited by opuslola - 03-Feb-2011 at 17:00
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
    Back to Top
    mynoon View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight


    Joined: 27-Jan-2011
    Online Status: Offline
    Posts: 53
    Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2011 at 16:09
    No your website shows the British overseas territories they all want to be ruled by Britain they are part of Britain. Well hanover was allied to Britain so they got the thrown. Holland/Scotland have all had the British thrown. don't worry those people have little power over our government.
     
    The empire i am taking about is the one Britain had right after ww2.
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

    This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.