Germany 4 English.Sheep.Shaggers 1
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Scraggy on 30 Jun 2010 07:33 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:53:42 +0100, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >Wrong ordinance. I have an overwhelming sense of deja vu... -- I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members. Groucho Marx
From: Hog on 30 Jun 2010 07:53 M J Carley wrote: > In the referenced article, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> writes: >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:48:11 +0100, "Hog" >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Are you suggesting they did or they did not > >> I wouldn't presume to speak for TBC, but I'd say that killing over a >> million people really ought to called a war, and a pretty 'all out' >> one at that. > > That's pretty much it. See I would call the war in the Pacific against Japan all out war. Vietnam was a very badly misjudged side show. I think the respective results speak for themselves. -- Hog
From: Hog on 30 Jun 2010 07:56 Champ wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:53:42 +0100, "Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> I think Hog is referring to the political interference in the >>>> campaign which prevented the American military from bombing the >>>> targets it wanted to, and has led many to claim was the primary >>>> factor in the American defeat. >>> >>> Given the amount of bombing they did carry out, how much of Vietnam >>> (and neighbouring countries) was left unbombed? > >> Obviously too much and too often. > > Given that more explosive power was dropped on Cambodia alone (let > alone Vietnam) than all the bombs dropped by all sides in WWII, I'm > not sure what more ordance would have achieved. > > It successfully bombed Cambodia into the stone age, contributing to > the rise of Pol Pot, anyway. Nukes. Appropriaterly targeted. I know it isn't very christian, but then......... -- Hog
From: M J Carley on 30 Jun 2010 08:15 In the referenced article, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes: >See I would call the war in the Pacific against Japan all out >war. Vietnam was a very badly misjudged side show. I think the >respective results speak for themselves. Vietnam was more heavily bombed than Japan was. -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: Two Dogs on 30 Jun 2010 08:59
On Jun 29, 4:17 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:56280bea-84f1-48e7-8c51-d308e5cb7930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 29, 1:03 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > > > > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > >news:e8756de1-7599-4a6f-94fb-90388794eac4(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 28, 5:21 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > > wrote: > > > > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > > >news:b7c08416-77da-428c-a6d6-ecf3dc39facb(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Jun 28, 1:05 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > "Alister" <alister.w...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:xYNVn.30962$U%7.30457(a)hurricane... > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:17:35 -0700, Lclawitcx wrote: > > > > > >> On 27 June, 19:58, Tosspot <Frank.Le...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> On 27/06/10 19:12, Lclawitcx wrote: > > > > > >>> > Oh dear, we destroyed you English racists. Thousands of you > > > > >>> > started > > > > >>> > off spouting your xenopobic chants about black people and the > > > > >>> > war > > > > >>> > outside the stadium, then it finished with you crying. This > > > > >>> > brings > > > > >>> > to > > > > >>> > an end the months of embarrassing English flag waving > > > > >>> > nationalism > > > > >>> > that even made Americans cringe. > > > > > >>> > A video summing up the English limeys world cup. > > > > >>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5kvpm_bTk4 > > > > > >>> > "The English are a nation of cowards" > > > > > >>> Yeah, but we're still 2:0 on World Wars. > > > > > >> The English contribution to WW2(which was laughably) consisted of > > > > >> running away like cowards and diving in to the sea at Dunkirk. Then > > > > >> waiting 4 years while the Americans and Russians won the actual > > > > >> war. > > > > > > The Russians almost certainly won the war which would have been very > > > > > bad > > > > > for the USA if we had not Won the battle of Britain ( which was > > > > > fought > > > > > before the USA even entered the war). > > > > > There would have been no staging post for the 'D' day landings which > > > > > would almost certainly handed the whole of Europe to the USSR. > > > > > > So far from saving our bacon in truth we saved yours. > > > > > >> 1 on 1 against Germany the English would have been annihilated. > > > > > > Did you check the score line for the Battle or Britain? I though > > > > > not. > > > > > The Stuka was a shinning example of German efficiency - the only > > > > fighter > > > > in > > > > WW2 that needed a fighter escort and every time our lads shot one down > > > > they > > > > got 2 Nazis for the price of one. > > > > > And if the Yanks start on about saving our bacon, remind them that > > > > Hitler > > > > had his boffins working on dirty nukes (the best they could do without > > > > all > > > > their Jewish scientists) and the means to drop them on the USA. > > > > > There were several versions of the "Amerikabomber" on the drawing > > > > board > > > > along with plans for a long range booster stage for the V2 rocket. > > > > > And the Yanks weren't doing us any favours, Hitler formally declared > > > > war > > > > on > > > > the US a few days after the Japs hit Pearl Harbour - from that point > > > > on > > > > we > > > > were basically running up a lend-lease debt to fight their war for > > > > them. > > > > Oh dear Ian, get your facts from war comics, do you? Or from reading > > > Rainer Karlsh? Next you'll be quoting from the Hitler Dairies. > > > > To have a dirty bomb you need material that has been passed through a > > > working nuclear reactor, > > > > -------------------------- > > > > What a complete and utter load of bollox. > > > > What they were striving for was radioactive material sufficiently > > > refined > > > to bring together something approaching critical mass to produce some > > > degree > > > of chain reaction. > > > Who are "they"? Work stopped in Germany on using any kind of nuclear > > source as a weapon by 1943. Feel free to quote reliable sources to > > prove otherwise. > > > And when you say "bringing together radioactive material sufficiently > > refined to bring about a chain reaction" what are you referring to? > > Medical waste FFS? Because they had no working reactor to produce any > > other kind of radioactive material, nor were they apparently in any > > hurry to make one. The only work in 1945 was, as I said, being done > > towards a Civil service power grid, not a weapon, and was nowhere near > > any kind of physical result. And the Military was showing little > > interest. > > > ------------------------- > > > So why do you suppose they placed so much vital military importance on > > heavy > > water (deuterium oxide) production. > > > Maybe their troops wanted something more substantial in their water > > canteens > > eh? > > Work on a nuclear weapon stopped, as I said, in 1943 when the > Norwegian Heavy Water plant was fucked up by saboteurs and bombing. > End of story, game over, heavy water had nothing at all to do with > production of a dirty bomb in 1945. > > ---------------------------------- > > You really don't have a clue. lol. Read on. > > Heavy water production was moved to germany after the Norwegian resistance > sabotaged the Norsk Hydro Plant. No it wasn't. Some of the surviving heavy water stocks made it to Germany, along with some of the equipment, but not a lot and it was shelved. There was no heavy water production in Germany, and the small amount salvaged from Norway wasn't particularly pure. > > The NR got another bite at the cherry when the Germans moved remaining heavy > water stocks across the lake - they set explosives on the ferry and sank it > at the deepest point. Yes, but I'm not sure how that supports any of your theories. > > The Nazi's would have been happy with any nuke they could get, but having > exterminated all their Jewish scientists they probably didn't have the means > to produce anything better than a crude dirty device - and as the allies > discovered they were still some way off of that. Again, nice broad statement, but no facts. You have yet to tell us where they would have gotten the radioactive material from for a dirty bomb. Remember, you said Hitler had his boffins working on a "Dirty Nuke". No substance, I'm afraid. Two Dogs |