Channel Four Now

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Haven't read the thread but some of that footage last night was like a fucking nightmare.

[Guest alex]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

Loads of ifs and buts there like. It's so hypothetical it isn't worth arguing about tbh but I'm bored so here goes:

The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians.

Yes it did and it would have probably defeated us too. It's one thing to assume we might have been formidable if we'd joined forces but it's a completely different thing to say we'd have been able to occupy Russia. Their manpower was virtually limitless.

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939

And how does that differ from UK at that same point exactly? Apart from they had a lot more money, manpower and manufacturing resources in general.

when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance.

Accepted by who? And if so, why didn't they do it? Sounds like more bollocks.

The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

So you think if we'd thrown our lot in with the Nazis, the Anzacs and Canada etc. would have gone along with us and not the US? Not sure about that one like. Even then they were more dependent on them for trade I think. Canada certainly were.

[Guest Stevie]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

[ChezGiven 0]

Was this the 102 minutes thing?

 

Was on History or Discovery ages ago.

 

Saw United 93 the other day, the finest propaganda moment since the event.

[Guest alex]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

[Guest alex]

If Japan could have easily invaded the US mainland with little resistance, how come they didn't even take Hawaii at that time?

[Fop 1]

There's only one way to find out.

 

TOONTASTIC RISK TOURNAMENT!

 

http://www.dominategame.com/website.php?

 

[Happy Face 29]

Agree with Billy like, it was an opportunity missed. Largely down to the bloke the US elected and his cronies. They then re-elected him so they don't really have any excuses.

 

The Govt in the U.S. hasn't changed since Kennedy died. More or less the same people and interest groups get in every time, Obama included.

I don't really think that's true in foreign policy / international diplomacy terms. I don't think you'd have had someone like Clinton (who I'm not saying is a saint by any means) would have launched into rhetoric like 'you're either with us or you're against us' or indeed would have invaded Iraq on such a dodgy premise.

 

It's simply not true on any level. Just another Parkyism.

 

 

The media that's supposed to represent the people and keep the government honest is too tied up as part of conglomerates to have it any other way. As was pointed out again today...

 

Yesterday, Meet the Press hosted a panel discussion to debate two primary issues: (1) foreign policy -- specifically, the war in Afghanistan, and (2) health care. The panel: Rudy Giuliani, Tom Friedman, Harold Ford, Jr., and Tom Brokaw (as Jay Rosen often notes, Meet the Press is doing a fantastic job of fulfilling its pledge to present "fresh voices" in its discussions).

 

With regard to Afghanistan, there is a major debate currently taking place about whether we should stay in that country. A majority of Americans now opposes the war. But there was not a single participant there who shares that view. All of them believe that it is imperative we remain, and put on their little General hats to exchange deeply Serious analyses of how we need to adjust our strategy and tactics for greater mission success. Of course, all of three of those whose views were known about Iraq -- Friedman, Ford and Giuliani -- were vehement supporters of the invasion. As always, not only does support for that war not produce shame or even impair one's credibility and Seriousness, but the opposite is true: having supported it is a prerequisite for being considered credible and Serious, which is why those are the only people -- still -- from whom we hear when it's time to convene Serious discussions of foreign policy. What an odd filtering standard for The Liberal Media to use.

 

On health care, the same dynamic repeated itself. The prime controversy in that debate is over the inclusion of a "public option," with large numbers of Americans supporting it. Yet once again, not a single member of the panel advocated it (though David Axelrod was interviewed before the panel and paid lip service to the public option on his way to clearly signaling it would not be part of the ultimate plan). Guiliani warned there would be no health care with a public option; Ford told his "liberal friends in Congress" that they will have to be disappointed by the outcome; Friedman insisted that Obama adopt the proposals of Mitt Romney and John McCain and ensure he has the support of centrist Republicans (Brokaw offered some mild pushback against the attempt to demonize the public option). The words "single payer" were never spoken.

 

What you had with the health care discussion, just as was true with the Afghanistan debate and the lead-up to the Iraq War, is one that -- by design -- completely excluded any views to the "left" of DLC Chair Harold Ford, even where such views are held by large numbers of Americans. With very rare exception, that is the spectrum of opinion typically allowed on Liberal Media shows like Meet the Press. The Liberal Media doesn't even pretend to include liberal views.

 

One last point: the two Toms -- Friedman and Brokaw -- shared "get off my lawn" sentiments by lamenting the irresponsible opinions which the Internet permits. Here's what Friedman -- who, prior to the advent of the Internet, was rarely criticized in any forum -- had to say about this serious matter:

 

MR. FRIEDMAN:

You know, David, I just want to say one thing to pick up on Tom's point, which is the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, left, right, center, up, down, and requires that kind of filtering by anyone. And I always felt, you know, when modems first came out, when that was how we got connected to the Internet, that every modem sold in America should actually come with a warning from the surgeon general that would have said, "judgment not included," OK? That you have to upload the old-fashioned way. Church, synagogue, temple, mosque, teachers, schools, you know. And too often now people say, and we've all heard it, "But I read it on the Internet," as if that solves the bar bet, you know? And I'm afraid not.

 

Indeed. I even heard that, before the Iraq war, there were people on the Internet saying that Saddam Hussein had purchased aluminum tubes that were used to build nuclear weapons, and that was then repeated by other blogs without challenge. Some reckless bloggers even dismissed European objections to the invasion as "not Serious"; demonzied war opposition as coming from " knee-jerk liberals and pacifists"; justified the war with the demented desire to make Iraqis "Suck On This"; and called for France to be removed from the U.N. Security Council. Unfiltered Internet hacks uncritically repeated what they were told by the U.S. military to disseminate myths about Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight and Pat Tillman's tragic death at the hands of Taliban monsters. One particularly unfiltered blog spent a week screaming to the country that government tests showed Saddam was likely responsible for the anthrax attacks. In fairness, Friedman is right about one thing, as the Meet the Press panel demonstrates: outside of the Internet, there is an extreme amount of "filtering" that determines what one hears.

 

Liberal views (proven correct repeatedly) are still restricted to the blogosphere....and HBO.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Happy Face

[The Fish 10779]

Military types must wish they had that kind of war. A war for territory rather than "hearts and minds". They're warrirors, not diplomats, which is why it's crazy to expect them to understand the nuances of an area that is entirely alien to them.

 

I still think the solution is Stick and Carrot mind, no good reaching out an olive branch if you don't have a baseball bat in the other hand, "just in case "

[Guest Stevie]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

[Guest alex]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

[The Fish 10779]

it would lend credence to your point, to the casual observer.

 

(I'm not you're right or wrong, as I'm not remotely informed enough to say one way or the other)

[Guest Stevie]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

I will later when I've got time to give a proper reply.

[Guest alex]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

I will later when I've got time to give a proper reply.

It's a straightforward enough question.

[Fop 1]

If Japan could have easily invaded the US mainland with little resistance, how come they didn't even take Hawaii at that time?

 

They took part of "Alaska"!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

[Guest Stevie]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

I will later when I've got time to give a proper reply.

It's a straightforward enough question.

You haven't even made clear what your question was

[Guest alex]

If Japan could have easily invaded the US mainland with little resistance, how come they didn't even take Hawaii at that time?

 

They took part of "Alaska"!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

Because no one lived there

[Guest alex]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

I will later when I've got time to give a proper reply.

It's a straightforward enough question.

You haven't even made clear what your question was

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=669513

[Fop 1]

If Japan could have easily invaded the US mainland with little resistance, how come they didn't even take Hawaii at that time?

 

They took part of "Alaska"!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

Because no one lived there

 

Aye the natives were forcibly removed by the USA and stuck in camps prior to the invasion.

[Guest Stevie]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

I'm no history expert but what lunatic accepts that? Source please.

I'll have a look later, seen it many places, and on various National Geographic shows.

Bollocks.

So you're calling me a liar you cunt? Total arrogant stuck up self righteous nobhead you mate. I've seen it mentioned in a number of different places, what would I have to gain by making that up?

Answer my question then.

I will later when I've got time to give a proper reply.

It's a straightforward enough question.

You haven't even made clear what your question was

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=669513

What am I the Emperor's fucking biographer?

[Guest alex]

Well, it hardly makes sense that what you said was possible, i.e. a full-scale invasion of the US mainland, if they couldn't/wouldn't invade Hawaii, does it?

[Guest Stevie]

Well, it hardly makes sense that what you said was possible, i.e. a full-scale invasion of the US mainland, if they couldn't/wouldn't invade Hawaii, does it?

It's totally hypothetical. As for not making sense. To me it didn't make sense that the Germans over estimated Britain in the war, but they did. The US had no significant defence all the way to Ohio, nothing, I've seen it said more than twice a surprise Japanese all out invasion would've had them fucked.

[Guest alex]

Well, it hardly makes sense that what you said was possible, i.e. a full-scale invasion of the US mainland, if they couldn't/wouldn't invade Hawaii, does it?

It's totally hypothetical. As for not making sense. To me it didn't make sense that the Germans over estimated Britain in the war, but they did. The US had no significant defence all the way to Ohio, nothing, I've seen it said more than twice a surprise Japanese all out invasion would've had them fucked.

How would they have mounted the invasion then? They'd have to cross the Pacific, yet even after Pearl Harbour, they couldn't take the Hawaiian Islands, which were strategically very important and a definite war aim of theirs. It's basically akin to saying the invasion would have been possible and would have suceeded if the US didn't have a Navy or if Japan was where California was instead of on the other side of the Pacific. Sorry, I didn't realise the premise was that hypothetical.

Edited September 8, 2009 by alex

[Fop 1]

Well, it hardly makes sense that what you said was possible, i.e. a full-scale invasion of the US mainland, if they couldn't/wouldn't invade Hawaii, does it?

It's totally hypothetical. As for not making sense. To me it didn't make sense that the Germans over estimated Britain in the war, but they did. The US had no significant defence all the way to Ohio, nothing, I've seen it said more than twice a surprise Japanese all out invasion would've had them fucked.

How would they have mounted the invasion then? They'd have to cross the Pacific, yet even after Pearl Harbour, they couldn't take the Hawaiian Islands, which were strategically very important and a definite war aim of theirs. It's basically akin to saying the invasion would have been possible and would have suceeded if the US didn't have a Navy or if Japan was where California was instead of on the other side of the Pacific. Sorry, I didn't realise the premise was that hypothetical.

 

Don't think the Hawaiian islands themselves were ever an objective of theirs, the aircraft carriers that were supposed to be stationed there and other ships were.

[Park Life 71]

Britain and Germany could have defeated America and Russia? Is that out of a BNP pamphlet btw?

One of your most pathetic posts yet. The cold largely beat the krauts on the Eastern front as much as the bravery of the Russians. If Germany and Britain attacked Russia at the beginning of the summer they'd have had the union jacks flying over the Kremlin, by the time Wimbledon started.

 

As for America it was so weak, poorly armed and unprepared for war in 1939, and 41 when Pearl Harbour get done, it's accepted that if the Japs had've had a land invasion, they could've got as far as Chicago with meagre resistance. The UK aside from what we had, had an entire global empire to manipulate, it's astonishingly naive to think the krauts and us as a hypothetical force could not have taken these countries.

 

What with our German royals I think it was closer than people realise. And yes patently if Germany didn't have 3 fronts they would have mullared Russia with or without us.